November 7, 2006: Not a good night to remember. As a Republican
and especially an American who supports our war efforts, I was
devastated; but as a political columnist, I say, “Bring it on!” And
maybe you should too.
Now before my inbox fills up with hate mail, let’s think this
through. Ever since the debacle of the 2000 presidential election,
we’ve been on the defensive. In the face of his razor-thin margin
of victory, the Bush Administration urged political comity,
promising to deliver on his campaign promise to be “a uniter, not a
divider.”
This spirit of nonpartisan harmony also pervaded the ranks of
Senate Republicans who, in January 2001, although they actually
held the majority via Vice President Dick Cheney, decided to
approve the generous “power-sharing” plan, which gave the parties
equal representation on committees, with evenly divided staffing
and resources.
Many in the GOP cringed when, then-Leader Trent Lott said, “We
don’t want a prescription for gridlock. We cannot allow that. We
have to extend the hand of friendship to our colleagues and try to
find a way to get the substantive issues to the floor of the
Senate.”
He and his colleagues’ magnanimous gesture was soon repaid with
infamy, as Jim Jeffords jumped ship and gave the non-shared power
back to the Democrats. But the GOP regained their majority in the
2002 elections and held it until last week, although some
conservatives claim there has been little concrete evidence of
this.
It’s said that every six years or so in a two-term presidency,
this sort of “balancing” election takes place. That the GOP managed
House and Senate majorities under Bush for nearly four years is
amazing and certainly an historical anomaly, so the idea that the
trend finally reversed itself is not a surprising one. Hitching a
party’s hopes to one man is sometimes a perilous proposition.
The theory that all members of the president’s party must march
in lockstep with him — see the Democrats and Bill Clinton — is
one that forces its adherents to walk a very fine line. Many
Democrats paid the price for this in 1994’s so-called Republican
Revolution. As is evident by now, some Republicans believed the
opposite and ran as fast and hard away from George Bush as they
could. Some were successful and some were not.
The point being, that there are some American political trends
that defy logic. There has been much finger-pointing and attempts
at blame-laying on the part of Republicans and conservatives as to
why and how the Democrats were catapulted back into power. The most
commonsensical explanation just may be the old chestnut that all
politics is local.
So now, with their majorities in both the House and the Senate,
it is the Democrats’ turn to steer the Congressional ship of state,
one whose course is known only to them. What is undeniably true is
that, despite the heretofore under-used veto pen of George W. Bush,
the Democrats will now have to govern and their elusive agenda must
manifest itself.
What this entails is not entirely clear. Charges of Bush’s
endless failures and ineptitude — not to mention his Prospero-like
ability to affect the forces of nature — can no longer pose as
policy. As is crystal clear to GOP supporters, even when an agenda
is evident and you control two of the three branches of government,
actually enacting legislation in the muck and mire of Washington is
never easy.
And this, my fellow partisans, is where the fun begins; fun, as
in watching the loyal opposition twist themselves into pretzels on
the floors of Congress for a change. Will there be serious
consequences for the country? Maybe, and they will begin with the
Democrats’ dumping of John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN; not that
Republicans had any luck in securing his confirmation when they
were in “power.”
And we will likely soon be stabbing the nascent Iraqi government
in the back, as we did the South Vietnamese during an earlier era
of Democratic control. But can we be sure that conservatives would
have prevailed on this, even had the GOP retained their majority?
Ditto, illegal immigration legislation, Social Security reform,
school choice etc.
But again, let’s look on the bright side. As at least one wing
of the Democratic Party will soon find out, the acquisition of
power is not always accompanied by the intestinal fortitude with
which to effectively wield it. And that, my dear friends is a
lesson we will enjoy re-learning; only this time it will come at
the expense of those across the aisle.
