Election Significance

The consensus of objective observers is that the Democrats will win the House in tomorrow’s election, almost surely picking up the 15 seats they need and probably adding some additional ones, though not a large number. The Senate is close, but the Republicans will probably hang on to it by the skin of their teeth. This election is as close as we get to a referendum on the President, and the American voters will be confirming what the polls have shown for months; they are rejecting George W. Bush. I agree with that assessment and I have a few additional comments about the election and some early thoughts on the significance of the change in the House and the possible course of the next two years.

Tomorrow, the Republicans will be aggressively pursuing their tactic of intimidating voters at the polls by vigorously challenging on any grounds conceivable those whom they correctly think are likely, not to vote illegally, but to vote Democratic. This means African-Americans, seniors and poor people will be targeted. Meanwhile their celebrated get out the vote program will be generating a massive number of phone calls, many by computer, to encourage likely Republican voters by disparaging Democratic candidates.

Some vote totals will be so close as to require recounts, and there will be challenges to the accuracy of the voting machinery used and to the recount process. Litigation is fairly likely, though I do not expect either the House or Senate to hang in the balance pending the outcome of such litigation. We will see that, despite the debacles of the 2000 election and because the Republicans have been in control of our federal government, no particularly meaningful national progress has been made toward insuring that everyone who legitimately wants to vote is able to do so and that all legitimate votes are accurately counted.

Immediately after the election, there will be a massive flurry of executive orders and agency regulatory changes intended to carry forward Bush agenda items that are too unpopular to have been moved on before the election. With the election over, Bush will want these measures put into place before the new Congress convenes in January and well before the 2008 campaign begins in earnest. The new Democratic House will not be able to overturn these measures, particularly if the Senate remains Republican, but in any event because Bush will still have the veto power. However, the House will be able to hold hearings to try to shine light on the more outrageous aspects of what is done. But there has already been so much done by the Bush Administration without oversight and review by the Republican Congress, that the Democrats will have to be fairly selective on which hearings to push and they will have to try to enlist some moderate Republicans in the effort, lest the public quickly grow weary. Former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich notes in this blog entry many possible hearings items, but wisely suggests a Democratic House use the two years to work on a wider agenda.

The House Democrats have identified some fundamental items which have broad public support, like a minimum wage increase, which they will pass to make a clear statement and put the challenge to the Senate. If Senate moderate Republicans align with the Democrats in sufficient numbers on a particular matter, or perhaps a compromised version of a matter, it may actually pass Congress and, if the White House has worked through the Senate moderate Republicans on the compromise, some limited version of the agenda might get signed into law. But no legislation of great significance is likely to come out of this process.

For a dozen years, the political talk has focused on what is wrong with the Democratic party and how it needs to change. In spite of criticism and with agonizing self-analysis, the Democrats have largely stayed true to their principles. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has become captured by an unseemly coalition of right wing neocons and evangelicals, nominally led by George W. Bush. The Iraq debacle has shown the ignorant invalidity of the neocon agenda. Evangelical politicians have turned off not only Democrats and moderate Republicans, but now also independents and sincere evangelicals who realize it really is a bad idea to mix religion and politics. The Republican party is now more in need of legitimate change than the Democrats. If moderate Republicans and true fiscal conservatives can take back control of their party, it will be good for America. This mid term election should give the GOP a reason to start in that direction.

The Iraq fiasco is tops in the minds of voters, but it will not be resolved by Congress. Bush is still in charge and he is driven by his ego to maintain his mythological self-image as the strong commander. The long range power people just want to make sure the Iraqi oil and the American military bases in Iraq are secured for American control and then they will not stand in the way of troop withdrawals. They don’t care about the Bush ego, which can be assuaged by dumping the mess on the Iraqis and holing some American troops up on the bases permanently, sort of like Guantanamo survives in Cuba. The oil has already been somewhat secured for America by contract and can be protected in the future by bribing top Iraqis and threatening violence from the American bases. With a final victory strut, Bush will be able to leave office and leave the American people with thousands of dead troops, millions of new enemies and billions of dollars of war debt.

With the 2006 mid term election out of the way and with Congress and the White house strategizing and maneuvering with the 2008 election in mind, somewhere outside Congress the likely next President will be building a campaign that will lead to the White House. If there is a God, please let that person be a Democrat.