What Does it All Mean?
It means a return to accountability in Congress. The Legislative branch of the federal government has shown its greatest power when it is able and willing to investigate. When wronged, the Congress is able to set the record straight. Consider the period after Watergate: at no time was the Congress more powerful, subpoenaing officials such as John Dean, and essentially ending a Presidency. This period also allowed for the passage of major campaign-finance reform in 1974 and the War Powers Act of 1973.
It means a return to economic security. The Bush administration, with the help of a Republican Congress, passed tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans, while leaving the poorer ones in the dust. The gap of economic inequality is larger now than what it was in the 1990s, though it began to increase during the 1980s, in what became to be known as “trickle-down economics.” Bush’s return to this policy exacerbated the problem. Democrats bent on rolling back the tax cuts for rich people, and replacing them with ones for lower-income Americans is a fresh start and a return to economic freedom and stability.
It means a rejection of the status quo. The Republican Party abandoned its ideals, and when attempting to run on an idea that does not reflect the record, it resulted in a repudiation of the administration. In 1994, the Republicans took control of the House calling for a balanced budget. However, they became fat and happy, spending more pork than any Congress in US history. When they turned Clinton surpluses into increasing deficits, the GOP ran away from its record on Congressional spending, and divided the nation on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and embryonic stem cell research. After failing to “fix” Social Security, the GOP did not even listen to ideas held by Democrats, but rather ignored them. The electorate was sick and tired of the politics of division and hate.
It means a possible return to bipartisanship. Democrats were foaming at the mouth when the results came in, but they must govern with restraint, and not give in to the urge to seek revenge against their Republican counterparts. After the elections, both parties made overtures towards bipartisanship, including the President hosting the new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the next House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). After the pleasantries, however, the bickering began again. The President, in trying to rush through last-minute legislation before the Democrats take office, re-nominated maligned UN Ambassador John Bolton (who received his position via recess appointment) and called for a bill legalizing wiretapping by the NSA without a warrant—policies vehemently opposed by Democrats. Bipartisanship is something that may have to wait awhile.
It could also mean…well, nothing. It has been widely reported that the Democrats that were elected are, in fact, more moderate than liberal, including lifelong Republican but recently turned Democrat Jim Webb (Va.) and gun-toting Jon Tester (Mon.). Newly elected Democrats are not beholden to the interests of the party, but rather of their constituencies. Consider this, as Paul Herrnson writes in Congressional Elections, “The candidate-centered nature of the US system encourages elected officials to be responsive to the desires of constituents and organized groups that support their campaigns, sometimes in opposition to their party’s leadership.” If a largely Republican district or state elected a Democrat, the constituency expects that official to legislate on behalf of their votes, and not on a party line.
The elections of 2006 brought the Democrats back into an influential role in the American political system, quite a feat after being considered a dead party by many. The Democrats must take advantage of the opportunity given to them, but they must do it with humility, or the Democrats may face the same fate they did in 1994.
No comments:
Post a Comment