The 2006 election is the biggest power shift in D.C. since the "Contract with America" in 1994. Republicans maintained control of both houses of Congress for 12… long… years. So as the results were coming in last Tuesday I couldn’t believe my eyes. Not only did we Democrats break our losing streak in the House, but we also took the Senate!
Now the question remains: Can we keep control? I’m happy today, but I have the sinking feeling that Justin will call me in two years laughing at my return to the default position of modern Democrats: disappointment.
Democrats are scattered across the political spectrum and have no unified plan for moving forward. The American people will quickly lose faith in our ability to lead, then Republicans will pounce on freshman Representatives in two years and probably take back the House if not the Senate as well.
We took Congress back with no coherent plan for domestic policy (except the pledge not to cyber-hump teenagers), about 300 different plans on how to win/withdraw/pullout/redeploy in/from Iraq and when our most recent presidential candidate bungled a joke by making the punchline, "Our troops are morons," a week before the election.
The problem is that Democrats still don’t know what they stand for. Republicans had a robust plan and a unified party when they took control of Congress in 1994. There was drive and energy and ambition. While that ambition eventually led to their downfall, they moved the conservative agenda forward while in power.
There is no coherent Democratic platform. "We’re not them!" is not a platform. We have pro-life and pro-choice Dems. We have pro-gun and pro-gun control folks. Some support gay marriage, some support civil unions and some defend "traditional" marriage.
Sure, there is a plan for the first 100 hours. College tuition, prescription drugs, minimum wage and stem cells among other things. But after the hundred hours is over, what next? There is no plan for immigration. There is no plan for how to handle Iraq. Is there going to be any movement on the environment? Do we raise taxes or decrease spending to balance the budget?
With so many conservative Dems coming in and so many old-school liberals still around, there is great potential for two years of infighting and squabbling. It’s already starting with the flap over Murtha or Hoyer for majority leader. And we’re not even in power yet!
If infighting continues, the American people will soon get fed up with Democratic leadership. How can we expect to lead a country if we can’t even lead our own party forward? While I disagree with Republicans on many issues, they are definitely organized and disciplined. Republican talking points make the rounds at every level, from the White House to the Senate to talk radio. They are a political machine that broke down because of corruption, but if they can do some repair work in the next two years, we’re in trouble.
If the Democrats start to splinter and bicker, Republicans will pounce on every vulnerable first-term Democrat and find about 85 new ways to call them weak on security. If there is even the smallest increase in taxes (despite the skyrocketing deficit and debt), Republicans will tell horror stories of taxing Americans to pay for the crack habits of promiscuous welfare mothers or some other slightly racist scare tactic a la Harold Ford '06.
Democrats have a chance to lead this country, an opportunity to move forward – please please don’t squander it. | Without question, this election finds our nation at the crossroads of power. The outcome two years hence, in my opinion, will depend, not on the mood or mindset of the American public, but on the character and vision of our political parties. While attributing the words character and vision to our political parties may seem foolish or ignorant, this is a question of degrees not absolutes.
The redefining power of the Contract with America was that it laid out objectives, goals and even timelines for implementation. This was better than continued rudderless leadership from a bloated, bureaucratic party with no discernable agenda. Over the following 12 years, the GOP has appeared to be more focused on an agenda of attainable, definable targets – national security, lower taxes, and an economy encouraging small businesses. The last 2 years have proven what many suspected to be true since 2002; the GOP has become what it claimed to be fighting in 1994. And so the Democrats have become better, by degrees, than the GOP.
Neither party is particularly visionary, because, pragmatically, they realize that true vision is easy to kill, execution style, in the bureaucracy of Congressional subcommittees. The last great attempt at true reform was when Bush proposed a way to completely revolutionize Social Security. We all saw how easily his opponents ripped through an idea that most financial experts, in theory, would support and the great momentum of the status quo rolled on. There was no meaningful or serious debate about how to change or improve Bush’s radical idea, but rather, political energy was seized by playing on the fears and worries of us voters that Bush would bankrupt the system and destroy the lives of current seniors. Political pragmatism always wins; political ideology dies and takes the ideologue with it.
Democrats campaigned on simple premises – raise the minimum wage, our policy in Iraq must change, etc. We, the voters, compared this platform of policy with a vague, unclear agenda from the GOP – support our troops (which means support the GOP), keep cutting taxes (not sure how or why), Bush is right (but we either will not or can not tell you why), we are the party of national security (Democrats are bad and if you vote for them, you will all die in your beds), and illegal immigration is bad (but half of us think it should continue, while those of us in border states think we should build a 40 foot high concrete barricade across the entire border with Mexico). This, inexplicably, looks to those of us who cast a ballot like a rudderless party with bloated, power crazed leaders who either do not care about the policies they are passing, or have not thought about what agenda is truly important. Is this hyperbole? Yes. Are the GOP leaders really heartless? Maybe. Just kidding, but the point is hopefully clear – we, the people of this country, respond to leaders who can clearly define and explain a vision and an agenda. This is why Bush beat Gore and Kerry, and it is why Clinton trounced Dole.
If the GOP does not find engaged, energized and visionary leadership, they will continue to flounder and the Democrats hold on the reins of power will continue into 2008 and beyond.
My vote for Congress this year was a write-in. I voted for Newt Gingrich. Not because he is running, and not necessarily because I think he is the great GOP hope in 2008, but for the single reason that he did something truly revolutionary in 1994. Newt laid out a plan and an agenda. He motivated both his peers and his country to believe that the GOP was different. His legacy changed the power structure in DC, but that legacy is now on life support, and without some serious soul searching, it could be in the grave after 2008.
|
2 Comments:
Unfortunately, unlike Justin, I find that the GOP is not in danger of losing power. The political and PR machine of the GOP is more savvy than that of the Dems. While the Dems continue to use vegetable oil to grease their spin wheel, the GOP has long since discovered WD-40 and the rest of us are often merely along for the ride.
However, the real question should be not whether this power shift between Democrats and Republicans--two like-minded political groups--is sustainable but whether the gains of gender is sustainable. This year's mid-term saw an increase for the first time in over a decade in women's representation in the U.S. government, which has hovered at a stagnant 22% since 1992, a stagnation that has placed the U.S. at 67th in the world in terms of women's political representation. Come 2008, will women continue to see gains in government? Is the shift to share power more equally between women and men sustainable?
--Lacey D.
Justin,
I hope you live in Tom Price’s district because I know my boss has not discarded the values made famous by Goldwater, Reagan, and Gingrich. Please do not lump all Republicans in the same boat with your "write-in vote." Many Members (110 members of the RSC) have been outspoken to leadership for years about how we need to change our ways, but our warnings fell on def ears. It is difficult to take action when you are outnumbered. Leadership was simply too concerned about keeping their majority and caved to the whims of blue state Republicans…lessons learned.
Although Phil won with a 72% majority, every vote counts and that should be the lesson for Republicans who discarded their base and thought they were too cool to campaign. Republicans have the right message: the message of the American people which is right of center. If that were not so, the Democrats would not be building a majority government on a foundation of pro-life, low tax, and pro-military Democrats. The referendum in this election was on corruption and incumbency, neither of which are exclusive to either party (although the longest serving Members of Congress are all Democrats). Nevertheless, the ruling majority is always penalized when people want change.
Furthermore, people were frustrated with the lack of traction on issues like illegal immigration and the war (both of which are issues where the President is at odds with the Congress). To think that the Democrats criticized us for being a rubber stamp Congress and when we didn’t pass the President’s crap, we were penalized. This is clear from the election results in the North and Midwest where Republicans had their clocks cleaned in New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania (the war was the chief issue. Not because we were in the war, but because we were dragging our feet waiting for the reluctant Iraqi people to form a government).
We also had losses in Ohio and Indiana because of corruption at the state level, which caused Republican voters to stay at home on election day. In addition, members like Hostettler thought they could run a campaign without raising money and distributing old election materials (dumb, dumb, dumb). The same problem happened to Hayworth in Arizona and Pombo in California, who both thought they were too big to actually lose.
The result is a perfect storm and Democrats were elected to their first majority in 12 years despite not taking a positive position on anything. The only thing Democrats have in common is their desire to raise the minimum wage. Pelosi seems to forget that such a raise would need 60 votes in the Senate and the Republicans that used to support a min wage increase such as Santorum, DeWine, and Chaffee, were thrown out of office. Can the Democrats govern? No. Will the Republicans regain control? It all depends on who carries the conservative platform in 2008.
Post a Comment
<< Home