|
|
|
Jewish World Review Nov. 14, 2005 / 12 Mar-Cheshvan, 5766 Just being the alternative could give Dems a win By Robert Robb
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Democrats are clearly licking their chops in anticipation of the 2006
election.
Is this justified or self-delusional? Probably a bit of both.
The Republicans are certainly in trouble and in disarray. Public approval
ratings for President Bush are low. Too much is being read into the recent
state and local elections, but they were unquestionably much better news
for Democrats than for Republicans.
Nor are the Republicans likely to get their act together and improve their
prospects prior to the 2006 election.
In Iraq, Bush is engaged in a mission — an unlimited military engagement in
another country — that makes Americans uncomfortable. Stability in Iraq, a
reduction in the troops stationed there and a clear sense that the end of
the commitment was in sight would undoubtedly improve the public's view of
Bush's leadership. But that requires a lot of change in that country in a
short period of time. Chances are the next election will occur with the
duration and extent of the U.S. engagement still uncertain, and with the
Bush administration defending that ambiguity as a strategic necessity.
The economy is performing well, even bordering on remarkable given the
shocks — recession, 9/11, natural disasters — it has sustained. The Gross
Domestic Product has now expanded at a rate of more than 3 percent for
eight quarters in a row, and often at a 4 percent to a 4.5 percent clip.
That's the longest stretch of such high growth since World War II.
Ordinarily the party in charge during such a growth spurt would be given
political credit, irrespective of whether actually deserved. But that's not
occurring now.
Democrats say it's because incomes aren't growing. But after-tax incomes
are growing, and real wages are beginning to.
Chances are it's more a sense of vulnerability resulting from much
faster-paced economic change. As much as our economy is built on
entrepreneurial energy, many people would trade some reward for enhanced
security. Economic security is becoming increasingly scarce even in good
times.
But the major reason Republicans are unlikely to recover before the 2006
election is because they have lost their principles and their nerve.
Spending has increased twice as fast under consolidated Republican rule as
it did during the divided government days of Bill Clinton. The current
attempts by Republicans to reduce spending growth are pathetic. The Senate
bill would cut a $2.5 trillion budget by just $7 billion a year. The House
is trying to up that to $10 billion. But the votes are difficult to come
by.
Moreover, the cuts are politically ham-handed, falling almost exclusively
on social programs and leaving less defensible corporate welfare spending
untouched.
There's a case to be made that Republican tax cuts helped restart and
sustain the economy. But congressional Republicans are getting cold feet
about extending the cuts, much less making them permanent.
There's a tendency for those who perceive themselves to be in trouble in
politics to try to reduce the grounds for criticism, a bid for support in
the legendary but elusive political center. And there's a whole lot of
ducking going on among congressional Republicans these days.
But that's not the way Republicans win elections. Republicans win elections
by expanding and motivating their base. Social conservatives have usually
been a volatile factor for Republicans. Economic conservatives may be
becoming such.
Can Democrats capitalize? There's a heated debate going on in national
Democratic circles over whether simply beating up the Republicans is
sufficient, or whether Democrats have to offer an alternative governing
agenda, as Republicans did in 1994 with the Contract with America.
The former is certainly easier than the latter. There's something in the
political beast that wants not only to defeat the opponent, but to destroy
him. And it sometimes leads to misdirection.
Take the Iraq war. If Democrats kept to insisting that there should be a
flexible timetable for withdrawing American troops, that would resonate
with the discomfit the body politic is feeling about the current policy.
Instead, they distract attention from the policy remedy by incessantly
carping that Bush lied to get the country into war. That's a difficult
claim to maintain, given that the Bush administration's assessment of
Saddam's capabilities did not materially differ from that of the Clinton
administration, of other intelligence services around the world, or of
senior Democrats at the time the decision for war was made.
Democrats will have an agenda when they have a new presidential candidate
in 2008. Cobbling one together that moves beyond pabulum in the interim
will be difficult.
The Democrats are now largely a protectionist party and they want to roll
back the Bush tax cuts for the relatively affluent. Beyond that, they would
have difficulty prioritizing a governing agenda. In particular, there are
deep fractures in the party over foreign policy, the use of military power
and fighting terrorism that shared hated and distrust of Bush have papered
over.
The real problem for Democrats, however, is in the numbers. Absent a
political tidal wave election such as 1994, there does not seem to be
enough seats in play for them to take control of either the Senate or the
House.
In the Senate, Democrats need to pick up six seats to gain control. There
are currently five open seats without an incumbent running, but three of
them are currently held by Democrats and a fourth belongs to an independent
who caucuses with them. There are maybe seven additional seats that are
likely to be competitive, and they are now primarily held by Republicans.
There are a handful of other races that one party or the other hopes to
make competitive.
In the House, Democrats have to win 16 new seats to take over. There are 21
open seats at this point, but only four are thought to be truly competitive
between the parties. National political handicappers believe that there are
somewhere around 35 congressional districts in play, but Democrats are
defending in about a third of them.
In short, to take control of either body, Democrats probably need a
national tidal wave election such as 1994, in which they pretty much sweep
the competitive races and win a few complete surprises as well.
That may be developing. The American people sometimes just get tired of
those governing them and want a change. I sense that such a sentiment is
beginning to congeal about President Bush and Republican control of
Congress.
Sometimes in politics, it's enough to just be the other guy.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Robert Robb is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. Comment by clicking here.
© 2005, The Arizona Republic |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||
