One Party Rule Is Not A Good Idea
As we head into the home stretch of Election 2008, there is a lot of talk about how big the probable Democratic victory is going to be. On many of the more liberal websites, people are almost drooling over the prospect of a major sweep. But, in this campaign, I think we need to consider too the impact of such a sweep.
One way to visualize what is going on is to look at New England, the six states of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Since the founding of the Republican party in 1854, the region has sent at least one Republican to every single Congress. An unbroken record of 154 years of elections.
But, after this week, that could no longer be true. There is only one GOP House member left in New England (compared to twenty one Democrats). Incumbent Christopher Shays (R-CT) is in a tough race for re-election and may well lose to a Democrat. Activists are vowing to ‘turn New England blue’ by wiping out any opposition of any kind.
This kind of thinking is even being promoted on a national level by some of the more far-left blogs like Daily Kos where the webmaster promotes the idea of crushing the opposition. Again this is not simply the idea that you have your views, I have mine, and we both hope that we win. This is the idea that only one viewpoint should be allowed, only one political position is acceptable. This is not a healthy concept either from the point of view of good government or free speech.
Now I am sure that some of our more liberal readers are thinking ‘well what is wrong with the idea of winning’. In response I would suggest they consider how they would feel if a similar campaign were being waged to ‘turn <insert area here> red’. The idea of absolute one party rule is quite disturbing to me. I would think the people of New England would recognize this as many of their legislatures are very lopsided and have led to a lot of scandal and corruption over the years.
Another issue that voters have complained about recently is the rise in partisanship, the fact that people no longer work together across party lines. Well, this kind of ‘wipe out the other side’ is hardly going to help change these problems. Indeed, it was moderate Republicans from New England, California, the Northeast, etc that helped to make the GOP more moderate and bridge some of the gaps.
Similarly, it was moderate to conservative Democrats from the South and West that allowed their party to become more moderate and mainstream. As much as I do not want to see one party rule in Washington, I do at least hope that some of the new Democrats will be of this moderate stripe, rather than following the netroots and the activists.
Unfortunately the same people who talk about turning regions blue are also the ones who are talking about purging the Democratic party of anyone who is not a hard core liberal. Again, this is hardly helpful to the idea of bipartisanship and moderation in politics. Once you no longer have to worry about the other side, then you no longer have to respond to your critics. Just as the Christian right has caused problems for the GOP, so the netroots left may be doing for the Democrats.
If you look over history, things have seldom gone well when one party ran a region or a state or a country. When you have no Republican or Democratic representatives from a state or a region, then what interest do they have in reaching out?
So I hope that voters will push both parties to work for bipartisanship and moderation, not simply for the sake of the parties but for the sake of the nation.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
35 Responses to “One Party Rule Is Not A Good Idea”
I'll bet the ranch that you were not talking like this during the first six years of the Bush regime.
threeaces,
the Republicans never had sixty seats in the Senate. The Republicans never got to the point that over 100 Congressmen were running unopposed for reelection. the Republicans never went two election cycles without a single incumbent Senator not being challenged.
Also, the demographic trends are all in the Democrats favor while the Democrats keep fighitng old battles. After the Obama Administration puts 20 million illegal aliens on the fast track to citizenship, the Republicans will have zero chance of recovery and the national elections will resemble the mayorial elections in Chicago.
Here's a pretty good graphic that would describe the last political 8 years. It's a little hard to “remember” those years of one party rule, during election time:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/…
Superdestroyer . . . A Democratic one-party state will not be as hegemonic as you argue.
Every Democratic affiliated group will come to Washington with Wish Lists. Obama has been able to be all things to all people, but some of those constituencies are mutually exclusive.
Look, for example, at what CNN calls Obama's “month's old” news (with audio clip no one heard of until this week) about his intent to bankrupt traditional coal plants.
“Clean coal” sounds all very nice, but who is going to pay the bill? Consumers, in higher prices. Labour in smokestack industries, with high union memberships.
Environmentalists will demand action. Unions will demand their jobs be protected. Consumers will demand no increase in energy bills.
How will Obama square the circle? Answer: He can't. Some of his constituents will be pissed off. That is the price of leadership.
Rep. Barney Frank has declared, in a recent interview with hometown press, that Democrats in the House will pursue a 25% cut in Defense spending and, eventually, increased taxes.
A 25% cut will put many defense workers out of jobs. Defense spending is spread across the nation, as a form of pork.
CodePink and MoveOn will be ecstatic at a 25% cut. American defense workers . . . not so happy.
You can imagine the list of further demands from Democratic constituents:
DailyKOS and MoveOn will demand President Obama sack Petraeus (“General Betray-US”) immediately upon inauguration. Gay rigthts advocates will demand a federal gay marriage bill (which will set the Churches . . .and the core Democratic constituency of Black churches . . . against the Democratic party elite).
For all these reasons, Superdestroyer, I do not believe Democratic hegemony will be any easier than Rove's pipedreams of an eternal Republican ascendency in the United States.
Bush and the GOP overreached in their years in power. Obama and the Democrats will overreach in theirs.
The one constant in political life in the spinning wheel of power . . . only those consumed by hubris, such as Karl Rove . . . believe they can ever stop the wheel with themselves in the ascendent.
It' s difficult to work with a Party that spends its time telling you that if you don't live in some hick town in fly-over country, that you are not a “Real American”
What Moderation? The only thing “moderate republicans” did was rollover for the right-wing nuts and let them have their way.
While bi-partisanship and reaching across the aisle made for a lot of pretty talk, we never saw more than lip-flapping in that regard during Bush's reign, and only near the beginning of his tenure at that. Neither did we see anything remotely resembling a plea for bi-partisanship from republicans in general. So…now that it appears the democrats may be in charge there is sudden concern from the right about “one party rule”, the balance of power, and bi-partisanship? Color me amused.
Yes, I want to see a united government, I'd like to see D's and R's working together again in the countries best interest. I want good things to get done for a change because we all want to start digging out of this hole that's been dug over the past 8 years. But I also want those on the right who were Bush cheerleaders all those years – cheerleading to the detriment of national unity by the way, to promise and do some soul searching, I want them to examine their own motives and consider what the difference is between rhetoric and reality, to think about the history of the last 8 years and make the honest effort to start with a clean slate.
Hey, I don't know if the democrats are going to come up big tomorrow or not. It sure looks like they are, but who knows for sure. Maybe they will squeek by with what Bush once referred to as a mandate. If so, then I sincerely hope the dems make a sincere effort to work across the aisle. Conversely I hope the R's make a sincere effort not to make their primary goal over the next 4 years one of obstruction.
Good luck to all of us. We'll need it. But we will mostly be creating our own luck.
It's a lesson both parties need to learn and let's face it, the two major parties are not exactly brilliant en masse. They have to go through this mess of purging the non-believers to understand that catering to the fringe is a fast-track to self-destruction. The GOP has a couple years of a head start on this, but the Dems tend to crash and burn faster. If they don't figure out a way to compromise with the more moderate members of their own parties and then with each other, my guess is we'll have a new party emerge that caters to the centrists. It'll be a sort of coalition of the old fiscal conservative republicans and the blue-dog democrats and if we're lucky, they won't focus on small government vs. big government, but on smart government that works for everyone.
It is hard to argue that the Bush Administration would not reach across the aisle when he proposed an illegal immigration amnesty program that would have benefited the Democratic party and the public sector unions while harming most of the groups of the Repulbican Party.
It is also hard that Bush adopted a conservative economic policy while running up $5 trillion in debt and expanded entitlements. If the Republicans should learn anything is that making proposals that help DEmocrats and hurt Republicans is a dumb idea.
Marlowecan,
David Axelrod already has a solution to the problems that you talked about. Keep raising taxes on the top 5% and use the money to offset the problems caused by any specific program. The big government party always had an easier time because they do not have to control spending. That is why Karl Rove convinced Bush to spend so much, Rove thought he could purchase votes with the spending.
Amanda said: “The GOP has a couple years of a head start on this, but the Dems tend to crash and burn faster.”
So the Democrats will implode in Obama's first term?
It is interesting that comments here suggest folks believe the Democrats will likely follow Bush's GOP method of “talking” of bipartisanship combined with the reality of an absolutist brand of governing.
JSpencer . . . no one is starting with a clean slate. As per usual, the first thing the day after the election will be talk of payback and grand dreams and symbolism.
I recall the Clinton bus ride from Monticello to Washington to symbolize a new Democratic beginning. Eight years later that ended ingloriously, in squalid pardons.
Much as has Bush's. I wonder if he will pardon Scotter Libby, as a last finger in the air to the supporters of the new regime?
A new Democratic adminstration will be a breath of fresh air in many ways. New ideas to solve old problems. Some will work. Some won't.
If Obama is truly a uniter, he may remedy decades of toxic politics with at least symbolic acknowledgements of opposing views.
But realism suggests payback will be the order of the day in January 2009.
Yeah, the Democrats only held the House from 1954 to 1994, a mere 40 years.
What you say is very true.
My point with “coal” is that it reflects how Obama has been able to be all things to all people: consumers, union workers, environmentalists.
But when you are a leader and you make important decisions, somebody will be hurt and start to cry.
If Obama reduces coal and oil dependency in favour of going nuclear, more crying. My god, I read about people in California complaining about Windmill Farms being a blot on the landscape of coastal plains.
I would argue that the greatest leaders in America were also among the most hated. Look at the deep hatreds contemporaries bore for FDR or Lincoln.
These are all obstacles to an enduring Democratic hegemony.
It' s difficult to work with a Party that spends its time telling you that if you don't live in some hick town in fly-over country, that you are not a “Real American”
Yeah, the hicks in fly-over country should learn to be more respectful of their ideological opponents, like Don Quijote is!
Marlowecan, I basically agree with your analysis. The Democrats do have a variety of constituencies in their coalition whose interests can sometimes be at odds with each other. And it will be interesting to see how they try to tip-toe through the tapestry.
With specific regard to what you said about the 25% cut in defense spending, however (and apart from whether it is realistic – that's another question), you mentioned it would entail putting many defense workers out of jobs. Hard to argue with that. But it seems your assumption is that defense spending is the most efficient way to create jobs. Why would that be? Why couldn't that money be reapportioned to create jobs in other sectors with even more efficiency?
For example, study after study have indicated that incentives directed at enhancing energy efficiency could save a great deal more money than it cost. Likewise, many studies indicate that investing in alternative energy sources could help bring them up to scale, thereby drive costs down, generate millions of jobs, and perhaps ultimately reduce the need to protect energy interests overseas. Even Newt Gingrich, before he got on his “Drill here, drill now” campaign, made that last point.
Again, I'm not saying it will happen. But it could.
Defense workers do not convert quickly to other jobs or industries that has been show. Also many times the defense work is in areas with few other large employers (Anniston Alabama, Lima Ohio) where people laid off will have to move (much like the automative industry.
Of course Obama has promised to review all other federal spending with looking at cutting but even the Pro-Obama people here cannot bring themselves to say that non-defense cuts will be made because even in the Clinton Administraiton there were no non-defense cuts.
I, too, wish we could all play nice together. But, after watching 8 years of “Compassionate Conservatism” destroy our country and the Republicans who voted blindly and in a solid bloc I don't think it is realistic.
I hope so. But Republicans have shown a win at all cost mentality for too many years for me to have that much hope.
SD: Defense workers do not convert quickly to other jobs or industries that has been show.
Apart from whether that's true or not, and apart from whether the same rationale could be applied to any other industry, is it a valid reason in and of itself for continuing to spend money on that industry? Doesn't that violate all kinds of conservative principles?
Obama is a blank slate. He has no record. People say that's a weakness, when actually it's his greatest strength. What better symbol to project a myriad of hopes and dreams on?
This election is about punishing Republicans. Republicans are being punished for the past 8 years. Once just wasn't enough.
SD, I know you love to beat that racial demographic drum, but this stood out to me
“Does anyone really believe that Obama will get one less vote from blacks or in Manhatten no matter how badly he performs.”
Does anyone really believe that any Republican will get one less vote from evangelicals or in Texas no matter how badly they perform?
But don't despair too much SD. Republicans will change (or die), but there will be no one party rule of the U.S. The innate sense of fairness in Americans wouldn't allow it. Trust me, once Obama has a record, he will be much easier to oppose.
One of the reasons that McCain is so far behind in the polls is that many tradiational Republicans voters have decided to not support the candidate. The Republicans are being pushed by their own voters for lousy government, massive deficits, and open borders. So, yes, Repulbicans will vote Repulbicans out of office (See David Hutchinson losing his Senate seat for divorcing his wife). Now if you are capable of showing where a change in the percentage of black vote caused a black Democratic to lose his office please do. Albert Wynn lost in the Democratic Primary in Maryland because whites voted against him in overwhelmingly numbers.
Also, there are too many examples of one party politics in the U.S. to believe that two party politics is natural. See everything from Mass. to Maryland to Chicago. They have been one party for decades where the Rep;ublicans cannot affect policy even if they manage to elect a moderate republican governor.
I think that Obama is going to have a really tough time reining in the House and Senate. He's not nearly as liberal as some of his colleagues probably hope he is and if he wants to be re-elected in 4 years, he can't just let the far left dictate policy. The Democrats have only been the majority party in Congress for 22 months, yet they already have lower approval ratings than their notoriously corrupt predecessors.
I'm an Obama supporter and a proud Democrat, but I recognize my party's weaknesses. There are a lot of members who are out for Republican blood and want to win so they can crush the opposition. They aren't concerned with the welfare of the nation as much as they are concerned with victory. If that wing of the party takes control of Congress, then my guess is there'll be a heck of a swing to the right during the 2010 and 2012 elections. Whether it costs Obama the Presidency depends on how he reacts to the far left. It'll be a delicate balancing act, opposing some members of your party while trying to maintain popularity with the rest. Just look at McCain's campaign for an example of how that can blow up in your face.
A 25% Pentagon cut won't ber that hard. MD(more) , FCS and (more).
It is also hard that Bush adopted a conservative economic policy while running up $5 trillion in debt and expanded entitlements. If the Republicans should learn anything is that making proposals that help DEmocrats and hurt Republicans is a dumb idea.
I'm not sure this is true. What items did he use to advance that debt?
Tax cuts… what Republicans wanted.
Dept of homeland security… pretty much what all but the most fiscal of conservatives wanted.
Medicare, part D… isn't what Republicans SAY they want, but consider this: most social conservatives are older, approaching or in retirement, and most Democratic voters are younger. While it may not jive with Republican ideology, it benefited the Republican base more than the Democratic one.
No child left behind… OK, more funding for education really was someting Democrats wanted. You are right about this one.
Z,
Converting security guards at airports to federal employees helps the Democrats. Creating another cabinet department that will lobby for more money is anti-conservative. Expanding entitlements without a thought to long term costs is a liberal idea. The Republicans added five trillon to the deficit and manage to do almost nothing with the money.
Rudi, thanks for the info. If nothing else it does indicate there is a considerable amount of chaff among the wheat. And though he hasn't gone into detail about it, even McCain mentions it from time to time.
On the separate topic of the GOP, I doubt if most people are happy about the way the party has imploded. Myself included. The election hasn't happened yet of course, but the degree to which it appears the Dems are likely to dominate does concern me. Then again, I'm not happy about the way the social conservatives have come to dominate the GOP, either. I have no problem with the idea of faith as a motivating force, but I do when it becomes a corrosive one. And it gets that way when people start thinking Christianity is the only true religion and/or a literal interpretation of the Bible is some kind of fundamental consideration for driving secular policy. Even the notion that the GOP is required to rely on white folks as their core constituency drives me crazy. That's nonsense. Not only is it nonsense, but it violates a core belief upon which the party was founded. It's not called the Party of Lincoln for nothing. IMO, the GOP has to stop spending so much time concentrating on superficial symbols and get down to substance. I suppose I could say that members of the GOP should make a spectacle of pounding brass tacks into their foreheads, but that would contradict what I just said. Lol!
Another point wholly apart from anything ideological: I think a considerable amount of house-cleaning is needed in the executive branch. And from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think it goes without saying that an Obama/Biden administration would do a better job of that, at least in the short run, than a McCain/Palin administration. What the Bush administration has done by way of appointing political cronies to what should be career administrative positions is deplorable. And considering who is advising the McCain/Palin ticket, I simply don't have much faith that the house-cleaning that is needed will get done under a McCain/Palin administration. That's not to say that it will be guaranteed in an Obama/Biden one, it's just far more likely.
As usual, interesting comments here but what they lead me to wonder about is the viability of using the Democratic and Republican party labels any longer. Perhaps there was a time when a particular party truly represented all of the ideals and pursued the agenda most fulfilling to its membership. It was collective bargaining in hopes of getting at least a few of your desires fulfilled, even if you had to share those priorities with less personally important concepts. So we saw the growth of the political parties along regional, idealogical, social, class and even racial lines. And then the traversal across those lines to where the parties are almost unrecognizable from their initial inception.
But less and less these days do we have to remain beholden to that collective bargaining. A vocal and energized minority, like an online community in the era of web 2.0, can have great impact on politics, especially downticket races. Is it going to be less important that a candidate is a “democrat” when that can mean any range of things? Instead we can search and debate individual records and do not need the filter of the media to tell us what the corporate overseers want us to know. Admit it, we use the labels (liberal, conservative, democratic, republican) to make it easier for us to discuss these matters without having to resort to the nuance of actual accuracy. Instead we can paint our opponent with broad stereotypic swathes. Is a post-partisan US politics coming? Or are we going to remain entrenched in our need for the familiar party names while attaching numerous modifiers to distinguish ourselves. “The blue-dog, fiscal conservative, socially liberal, anti-tax democrats versus the pro-gun, bill of rights, libertarian leaning, social conservative, anti-immigration democrats.
A complete implosion and really, really drastic defeat is the only thing that might force current Republicans into an honest search for what went wrong for them instead of just whining about how their message didn't get out and it's all the evil MSM's fault.
Ricorun said: “But it seems your assumption is that defense spending is the most efficient way to create jobs. Why would that be? Why couldn't that money be reapportioned to create jobs in other sectors with even more efficiency?”
I don't think defense spending is the most efficient way to create jobs. Nor even am I arguing against cuts.
But with plants spread across Congressional districts, Barney Frank is clearly wishful thinking if he dreams a 25% cut could ever survive.
My focus was basically on the political dilemma a President Obama will face in making tough decisions that will infuriate this or that constituency of a bloc that is now more or less solidly behind him.
There will be bitter fights to come, that will fray the Democratic coalition.
Rudi- but why not cut from those wasteful projects and shift instead to other defense needs? Troops need higher pay and veterans need better care, no?
Ricorun said: “On the separate topic of the GOP, I doubt if most people are happy about the way the party has imploded. Myself included.”
As a conservative, I am not unhappy about the GOP implosion. I think a good way of looking at it is like market discipline punishing a badly run company.
I would argue that conservatism . . . certainly the American strain . . . has run out of ideas.
Ronald Reagan swept in like a breath of fresh air amid the stagflation and collapse of traditional Keynesian economics. Arguably, Gingrich renewed it politically in the 90s.
But there doesn't seem a whole lot there now except “No” to this and “No” to that IMHO.
Of course, some people might argue that McCain would be better than the Neo-Bolshevik Obama administration
I suspect Amanda calls this right in her comment above . . . . With Democrat payback this time, there will be a corrective swing to the Right in the 2010 election (a la 1994).
That is . . . however . . . if the GOP plays ITS cards right.
There is the JOKER that is Palin . . . who knows what she will mean for the future of the GOP. I won't even go there . . . .
CStanley said: “Troops need higher pay and veterans need better care, no?”
This is another chicken that will come home to roost on the next administration's watch.
The costs of stress on the troops from continual deployments will be high. As the Democrats have stressed this issue in criticizing Bush, there is no way Obama can short-change benefits for the troops without paying a terrible price.
Where is the money going to come from, on top of the $700 billion recent incentive?
marlowecan,
Also, you cannot cut 25% from the defense budget without cutting troop strenght. thus a reduction of the military's budget will mean firing people from the military during a recession. At least Clinton downsized the military during a boom in the economy.
You have analyzed coal but you should also look at gasoline. For alterantives to become more viable, the price of gasoline needs to remain high. But Obama is promsing lower fuel prices. he will be stuck with trying to lower the short term price of fueld with the idea that alternative fuels will become non-viable or he will keep fuel prices high and pay an economic price.
CS says: Rudi- but why not cut from those wasteful projects and shift instead to other defense needs? Troops need higher pay and veterans need better care, no?
But cuts at the Pentagon won't happen. Frank and Lieberman have vested interests in keeping the bloated pork in VERY hitech programs.Think tanks like Heritage haven't met a weapons system that didn't give them a “woody”. While the personel objectives behind FCS are beyond debate, the wastefull spending on “future technologies” isn't anything like NASA and lacks a visionary like von Braun
Rudi,
If you look back at the cuts during th eClinton Administraiton, entire divisions were cut out of the military and the military went through a reduction in force. Cutting 25% without personnel cuts means either new weapons development is stopped, old equipment is not replaced, or the force stops training. A 25% cut would also require huge civilian workforce layoffs and a reworking of priorities in the Pentagon to decide what the military will stop doing.
Marlowecan: The costs of stress on the troops from continual deployments will be high. As the Democrats have stressed this issue in criticizing Bush, there is no way Obama can short-change benefits for the troops without paying a terrible price.
Perhaps not. But do you think a McCain administration could — or should?
SD: If you look back at the cuts during th eClinton Administraiton, entire divisions were cut out of the military and the military went through a reduction in force.
Actually, if you look even further back I think you'd find Clinton's predecessor, one GHW Bush — and if my memory serves me, also advocated by his Sec Def at the time, one Dick Cheney — was the one that put the wheels in motion. GHWB called it the “peace dividend.” Be that as it may, I guess the essential issue is… were they wrong? And if so, how so? And was it so stark as to call it a black and white thing? Or does whatever your call on it require an eye to nuance?
That last question could be more generally applied, even to this thread (not to mention the federal government as a whole, or its role in spending anything for whatever purpose). It seems there is some thought through this thread that if the hundreds of billions of dollars which could be saved by failing to pursue new military hardware — a pursuit which shows some evidence of turning into a boondoggle — must only be spent instead servicing the medical interests of those who have already served on a penny for penny basis. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I doubt anyone else here does either. So the question I have is, why should anyone make that assumption? And should McCain be elected instead of Obama, would he be immune to whatever criticism accrues?
Looking at the larger picture, I had occasion a few days ago to listen to Arthur Laffer (of Laffer curve fame) speak on what his intentions were during the Reagan administration. He indicated that what he intended to do was to point out how revenues could be maximized by appropriate adjustment of tax rates as they existed at the time. And that involved cutting them. He also noted that he admired Pres. Clinton because he understood that some of the revenues obtained can be used to incentivize research, innovation, and the development of new industries, thus expanding the entire economic base. And let me say that IMO, that's something government does far better than the industry sector does, regardless of what industry is discussed. Left to their own devices, industry is far more interested in protecting their behinds than exposing them to some new wind (so to speak).
Patrick, good article. But also Marlowecan, good commentary on the limits of a liberal majority. I think that many of the new people coming in, especially if they're from traditionally Republican states/districts, will have to necessarily be moderate to conservative if they want to win tomorrow.