A sharp lurch to the left and enactment of a liberal agenda, or major parts of it, are all but inevitable. The centrist limits in earlier eras of Democratic control are gone. In the short run, Democrats may be constrained by the weak economy and a large budget deficit. Tax hikes and massive spending programs, except those billed as job creation, may have to be delayed.Add in empowered liberal interest groups and bloggers who are expecting to get tangible results for all their efforts to elect Democrats. And then factor in a pliant liberal media that will not act as a loyal opposition as they do when Republicans are in power.
But much of their agenda -- the "card check" proposal to end secret ballots in union elections, the Fairness Doctrine to stifle conservative talk radio, liberal judicial nominees, trade restrictions, retreat from Iraq, talks with Iran -- doesn't require spending. And after 14 years of Republican control of Congress, the presidency, or both, Democrats are impatient. They want to move quickly.
Democrats had large majorities when Jimmy Carter became president in 1977 (61-38 in the Senate, 292-143 in the House) and when Bill Clinton took office in 1993 (56-44, 258-176). So why are their prospects for legislative success so much better now?
The most significant change is in the ideological makeup of the Democratic majorities. In the Carter and Clinton eras, there were dozens of moderate and conservative Democrats in Congress, a disproportionate number of them committee chairs. Now the Democratic majorities in both houses are composed almost uniformly of liberals. Those few who aren't, including the tiny but heralded gang of moderates elected to the House in 2006, usually knuckle under on liberal issues. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bosses them around like hired help.
In the past, senior Democrats intervened to prevent a liberal onslaught. Along with Republicans, they stopped President Carter from implementing his plan to pull American troops out of South Korea.
It's all a dismal prospect leaving conservatives with little to hope for except that the liberals will so overreach that there will be a 1994-like backlash against them in 2010.
So while I'm pretty discouraged about the near future, I also am old enough to have lived through Richard Nixon's landslide victory in 1972, the Watergate election of 1974, Reagan's victories in the 1980s, Clinton's success in 1992, the 1994 euphoria, post 9/11 success in 2002, and the depressing results in 2006. I've studied enough history to realize that political results are cyclical. The Democrats are up now, but that will not be permanent and the wheel will turn again. Republicans have been on top and have made their share of bad mistakes. What we have to do is hope that the Democrats don't do too much permanent damage to the country in their time in the catbird seat.
13 comments:
...political results are cyclical...
Except for the fact that almost every single "Great Society" program enacted in a rush in the first 100 days of the LBJ administration is still with us. Never mind all of FDR's stuff.
Once those entitlements are in law it's almost impossible to get rid of them. Not that they're all bad.
I have lived through all of that also-but we have never had a true Marxist/socialist president with fellow travlers leading both houses in Congress determined to change everything this country has ever stood for.
The Democrats are invested in dishonesty to win this election. I do not see that changing in the next election. Control, for them, is everything.
Thanks for all of your blogging, and keep it up. Conservatives should relish the fight back from the wilderness.
None of the waves of liberalism that have been installed over the past 70 years have ever been reversed. We will eventually reach a tipping point where socialism/communism will no longer be reversible. Your post makes me think if Obama is elected we will have reached that point.
Betsy, in your last paragraph you forgot to mention having lived through the Carter administration (as I did too). Freudian slip? Remembering just how bad Carter was, and how much damage he did and left behind, is not at all cheering in the face of an imminent Obama Presidency.
I'm not so sure as FDR almost immediately had problems with keeping moderate urban Republicans and moderate midwestern Democrats supporting him and had to rely on the Dixicrats more as time went on to at least get watered down versions of his first term programs passed.
Welfare was finally reformed and is radically different today then when codified. We still resist universal health care even though its been discussed and attempts made to introduce some form of it for 125 years.
And most importantly we, conservatives, essentially still have the SCOTUS which will probably strike down some of the pipe dream solutions passed by even a wildly popular legislative and executive branch.
And mainly the political circumstances are completely different. Johnson had huge majorities in both houses and the skills necessary to convince committee chairs to push his bills and keep the caucus organized and disciplined. Obama on the other hand has never shown any great aptitude to lead or even be convincing so will probably get rolled by Congress. Congress in turn will overreach and probably get mired down in exacting retribution for real and imagined slights over the years.
Henry Waxman is a good example as his legislative record can at best be described as thin but during both periods when he headed the Oversight Committee he held hundreds of hearings which produced much light but very little heat in the way of reform or exposure of criminal behaviour.
There are going to be a lot of law suits about election fraud I believe regardless of who wins. Actions against the MSM and other institutions will get more active.
The conservatives may just start taking moves from the radical lefts playbook. Sulla comes to Rome.
"And most importantly we, conservatives, essentially still have the SCOTUS which will probably strike down some of the pipe dream solutions passed by even a wildly popular legislative and executive branch."
What? Scotus will not strike down anything related to increasing the welfare state. We may be lucky with some of the freedom of speech changes the Dems might push through.
The urgency of the Democratic Congress to enact changes is exactly why if Obama wins the conservative/libertarian groups have to use the next 2 months not to complain but to target specific policy items and start to build the groundswell against them. "Card Check" is a perfect opportunity. As one of many issues in this election it has been overlooked by many voters. However when it has to stand on its own, then I believe many Obama voters will reject it. And Obama and many of those more moderate and newly elected Senators won't want one of their first moves to be wildly unpopular. I think the key will be to stay focused on the policies and not the personalities.
I decided to survey Conservative websites this afternoon, and I've got to say, what I found here gave me pause...
"Democratic overlords"?!
Really, that's beyond the pale, considering the Bush concept of the "unitary executive," which this administration has deployed in defiance of Constitutional intent.
But whatever.
These are difficult times, and we're all trying to understand what the near financial collapse of the Western world means for us and our retirements. I suspect that many Americans in the lower two quintiles are rather glad Social Security wasn't privatized (but, won't they be surprised to learn where that $700 billion is coming from ;) )
But I digress.
The best to each of you Conservatives on this fateful day. Always remember that the US prospers best when Democratic leadership mans the helm of state. So, perhaps you'll come to see, with time, that it's the Republican impulse to Lord it over the 95% of us who don't own 81% of the country's wealth.
I trust in your capacity to accept Christ's blessings.
-Pastor Ray from Salem VA
If Obama wins, nmp nails it, I think.
A conservative base still exists. It's not monolithic, contrary to what the Left and MSM blare, and will respond to the proper messages. It just needs a leader. McCain never was that leader. One day he was feeding it comfort food; the next he was sticking a finger down its throat.
There are mountebanks in both parties. Some pundits say Democrats won't get a filibuster-proof Senate majority on their own, but with RINOs Dukakis, Collins and Specter, one can be 'arranged.' Target a few RINOs and start moving the GOP away from the big government, big spending monstrosity it's become.
Conservatives must be willing to put their energy and money where their mouths are by supporting the few conservative media, bloggers, publications, organizations and candidates there are, so coherent, effective opposing views, as well as the truth about what the Left is doing, can be gotten out to the public.
The best organization I've seen at doing this is the National Rifle Association (NRA). It has terrific organization, membership, spokespeople (women and men), research, communications, lobbying and isn't afraid to use them.
It's not an overnight solution, but getting where we are didn't happen overnight, either. (We've been complaining here for years about Bush's spending.)
the differences between the 1960's and 70's and now is the change in demographics. It will hard for conservatives to regain any form of political power while the percentage of the voters that are white decreases.
Until someone can explain how a conservative political party can appeal to blacks and Hispanics, all the talk of regaining lost power should be avoided.
To be perfectly honest, I feel it's going to be nigh impossible for any party to truly botch America. They can make very bad, bad mistakes; however, any man, any party, is capable of such.
Democracy is a self-perfecting system. Its strengths lie in the fact that everything is reversible. Everything is balanced. And that, should the American public find fault in their leader, as in Watergate and Clinton's affair, they can take measures to stop them.
The idea that Obama will turn America into a socialist community is ludicrous in that we cannot become a socialist community, and we cannot because our government is based in the self-interest of those in power. Those who argue that the federal government has the power to make us such havn't looked at the power of the people very closely.
We, the people, elect our Congressmen. These Congressmen represent us, or they get sacked. Their fate lies in our hands. The majority is a very powerful force. The majority takes and removes men from office. A politician can't act, can't remain in office, without remembering that the majority is watching him. People can claim special interests are incredibly power and control Washington, and, in some ways, they do. But, more importantly, in some ways, they don't.
The special interests, the minority, can't overwhelm the majority. The special itnerests can pump as much money as they want into incumbents, but ultimately, their votes are few. The next time an election comes around, those politicians are gone if their opinions aren't in line with the majority.
And thus, we come to the issue of the majority. What is the majority? Tonight, we find out. But it'll be close. Very close. Probably within 3 percent of the vote. The fact that the majority can flip so easily is evidence to the cyclical nature of politics, as Mrs. Newmark describes.
This cyclical nature of politics, combined with the fact that politicians are generally more concerned with staying in office than following any radical beliefs they may subscribe to, all but prevents those in power from transforming America into a socialist society, or permanently destroying our nation. They can't betray the fickle majority, or they'll lose their jobs.
On top of that, a socialistic nation would be horrible for those in power. Why would a Congressman, whose job is to be a member of a legislative branch, ever approve a policy that would push America towards the socialism that would put him out of his job? When you account also for the fact that most politicians are rich, 'Spreading the Wealth' certainly becomes less attractive. If Obama enters office, he'll have to confront a Congress full of people who may make more than 250,000 a year, and don't wish to spread their wealth.
The shadows of socialism in Obama's shadow are not unlike nonverbal campaign promises. The mere fact that people see socialism within him is testament to the fact it'll never happen in the United States. Politicians are notorious for abandoning campaign promises, spoken and unspoken.
Why, then, are people so concerned about Obama bringing Socialism to America?
Post a Comment