If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought. For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price.

Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here's why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.

As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.

But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K. How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the motors of capitalism running - banks and auto companies?

The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.

Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama's political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.

"An apology is due Barack Obama," wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal - one of Obama's signature economic successes.

Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.

All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.

"We have done things that people don't even know about," Obama told Jon Stewart. Certainly. The three signature accomplishments of his first two years - a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package - have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority.

But each of them, in its way, should strengthen the system. The health law will hold costs down, while giving millions the chance at getting care, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Financial reform seeks to prevent the kind of meltdown that caused the global economic collapse. And the stimulus, though it drastically raised the deficit, saved about 3 million jobs, again according to the CBO. It also gave a majority of taxpayers a one-time cut - even if 90 percent of Americans don't know that, either.

Of course, nobody gets credit for preventing a plane crash. "It could have been much worse!" is not a rallying cry. And, more telling, despite a meager uptick in job growth this year, the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 percent in the month Obama took office to 9.6 today.

Billions of profits, windfalls in the stock market, a stable banking system - but no jobs.

Of course, the big money interests who benefited from Obama's initiatives have shown no appreciation. Obama, as a senator, voted against the initial bailout of AIG, the reckless insurance giant. As president, he extended them treasury loans at a time when economists said he must - or risk further meltdown. Their response was to give themselves $165 million in executive bonuses, and funnel money to Republicans this year.

Money flows one way, to power, now held by the party that promises tax cuts and deregulation - which should please big business even more.

President Franklin Roosevelt also saved capitalism, in part by a bank "holiday" in 1933, at a time when the free enterprise system had failed. Unlike Obama, he was rewarded with midterm gains for his own party because a majority liked where he was taking the country. The bank holiday was incidental to a larger public works campaign.

Obama can recast himself as the consumer's best friend, and welcome the animus of Wall Street. He should hector the companies sitting on piles of cash but not hiring new workers. For those who do hire, and create new jobs, he can offer tax incentives. He should finger the financial giants for refusing to clean up their own mess in the foreclosure crisis. He should point to the long overdue protections for credit card holders that came with reform.

And he should veto, veto, veto any bill that attempts to roll back some of the basic protections for people against the institutions that have so much control over their lives - insurance companies, Wall Street and big oil.

They will whine a fierce storm, the manipulators of great wealth. A war on business, they will claim. Not even close. Obama saved them, and the biggest cost was to him.

(*) Timothy Egan worked for The Times for 18 years - as Pacific Northwest correspondent and a national enterprise reporter. His column on American politics and life as seen from the West Coast appears here on Thursdays. In 2001, he was part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning team that wrote the series "How Race Is Lived in America." He is the author of several books, including "The Worst Hard Time," a history of the Dust Bowl, for which he won the National Book Award, and most recently, "The Big Burn: Teddy Roosevelt and the Fire That Saved America."

Deep Rifts Divide Obama and Republicans

WASHINGTON - President Obama and newly empowered Republican leaders professed a desire Wednesday to work together but yielded little ground on deep policy differences, foreshadowing the profound challenge of turning around a flagging economy under a divided government.

After what Mr. Obama described as an electoral "shellacking" for his party, the two sides gingerly explored the reshaped political terrain and sought to define Tuesday's results. Republicans claimed a mandate to reverse Mr. Obama's agenda while the president cast the vote as a cry of frustration that he has not moved fast enough.

"Over the last two years, we've made progress," Mr. Obama said at a White House news conference intended to reassert his leadership as Republicans celebrated their capture of the House and gains in the Senate. "But, clearly, too many Americans haven't felt that progress yet, and they told us that yesterday. And as president, I take responsibility for that."

More conciliatory than contrite, Mr. Obama used that phrase, "take responsibility," six times but rejected the suggestion that his policies were moving the country in the wrong direction. He conceded that legislation to limit greenhouse gases was dead and said he was "absolutely" willing to negotiate over the extension of tax cuts, including for the wealthy. But he drew the line at any major retreat from signature priorities, saying he would agree to "tweak" his health care program, not "relitigate arguments" over its central elements.

While Republicans also called for more cooperation, they suggested that Democrats might not have fully absorbed the lessons of their drubbing.

"Their view is that we haven't cooperated enough," said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader. "I think what the American people were saying yesterday is that they appreciated us saying no to the things that the American people indicated they were not in favor of."

The trials awaiting a fractured capital could arrive swiftly when the departing Democratic-controlled Congress returns in lame-duck session this month with contentious issues like tax cuts, the federal debt limit, unemployment insurance, an arms control treaty with Russia and gay men and lesbians in the military all on the table.

As Washington awoke to the new order on Wednesday, Republicans had picked up at least 60 seats in the House, with 11 races undecided, the biggest swing since the 1948 elections under President Harry S. Truman. They took at least six seats in the Senate, falling short of control, with two races undecided.

In Colorado, Senator Michael Bennet, the Democrat, won, while in Washington Senator Patty Murray led her Republican challenger by one percentage point. In Alaska, Senator Lisa Murkowski, who ran as a write-in after losing the Republican primary, appeared poised to surpass both party nominees. If the incumbents hang onto their seats, The Democratic caucus will have a majority of 53 to 47.

The election results immediately played out on Capitol Hill as House Republicans began a leadership shuffle and Democrats awaited a decision by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California on whether she intended to remain as her party's leader in the minority. Ms. Pelosi told Diane Sawyer of ABC News that she would talk with her family "and pray over it" before deciding but added that she had "no regrets" and blamed the economy for her party's losses.

"Nine and a half percent unemployment is a very eclipsing event," she said. "If people don't have a job, they're not too interested in how you intend for them to have a job. They want to see results."

Their rise to power means Republicans have more leadership positions to fill. With Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio slated to become speaker and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia expected to become majority leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, who was active in recruiting candidates this year, announced he would seek the No. 3 job of majority whip.

Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, formerly leader of a bloc of House conservatives, is seeking the No. 4 slot, conference chairman. He could face a challenge from Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a Tea Party favorite.

Making his debut as speaker in waiting, Mr. Boehner predicted that he would be able to work well with the incoming conservative class elected on Tuesday. "What unites us as Republicans will be the agenda of the American people," he said. "And if we're listening to the American people, I don't see any problems incorporating members of the Tea Party, along with our party, in a quest that's really the same."

Mr. Boehner could find that unity tested, probably early next year, when the House must vote on raising the federal debt ceiling. Most Republicans in recent years have refused to support such increases, and many candidates this year ran on a platform opposing any increase in red ink. But as the party soon to be in charge of the House, Republicans run the risk of triggering a government default and a financial crisis should they refuse to increase federal borrowing power.

Mr. Boehner had no ready answer for how Republicans would handle the potentially explosive issue. "We'll be working that out over the next couple of months," he said.

Except for early in President George W. Bush's tenure, when a party switch briefly handed control of the Senate to Democrats, this will be the first time Congress has been split between the parties since the 1986 election. The Senate may prove useful to Mr. Obama in killing Republican initiatives he opposes but it remains unclear whether he will be able to play off a Republican House heading into 2012 the way President Bill Clinton used a Republican-controlled Congress as a foil for his re-election in 1996.

The divide between the two chambers was evident as Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, having survived an election scare, emerged to argue that the lesson of the election was that voters want more cooperation from the parties. The onus, he said, is on Republicans.

"Republicans must take their responsibility to solve the problems of ordinary Americans," Mr. Reid said in a conference call with reporters. "No is not the answer. It has to be yes. Not our yes, but a combined yes, something we work out, a consensus yes. The time for politics is over."

Weakened by the election results, Mr. Obama sought Wednesday to occupy the public stage and take his punishment without surrendering stature. He announced no staff shuffle or new direction, as presidents sometimes do when they get in trouble. But he called the defeat "humbling" and said "it feels bad" to see so many allies go down for voting for his program.

"This is something that I think every president needs to go through," he said. "In the rush of activity, sometimes we lose track of, you know, the ways that we connected with voters that got us here in the first place."

Living in the White House, he said, "it is hard not to seem removed."

But he quickly added, to laughter: "Now, I'm not recommending for every future president that they take a shellacking like I did last night. I'm sure there are easier ways to learn these lessons."

Still, his analysis of that shellacking differed sharply from that of the Republicans and many independent strategists. He agreed that many voters felt government was growing too large and intrusive. But he maintained his were still the right policies.

"It would be hard to argue that we're going backwards," he said. "I think what you can argue is we're stuck in neutral."

Where he conceded a misstep was in failing to follow through on promises to reform the way Washington works out of a need to confront the economic crises he inherited: "We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn't change how things got done. And I think that frustrated people."

Mr. Obama said he was "very eager to sit down" with Republicans and laid out "a whole bunch of areas where we can agree," including job creation, deficit reduction, energy independence, education reform and infrastructure investment. While a carbon cap cannot pass "this year or next year or the year after," he said, he suggested that he and Republicans could collaborate to promote natural gas, electric cars and nuclear energy.

He specifically embraced a proposal by Mr. Cantor to impose a moratorium on special Congressional spending items known as earmarks. Asked if there was anything in the Republicans' Pledge to America campaign manifesto that he could support, he mentioned its promises to reform how Washington works.

"I do believe there is hope for civility," he said. "I do believe there's hope for progress."

Megan Thee-Brenan, Michael Luo and Joseph Berger contributed reporting.