Democrats WIN!!! Now What?
By: Mick, November 8th, 2006
The American people have spoken loudly and clearly. The war in Iraq and ongoing scandals among the Republican leadership in Congress has prompted voters to pass control of the House of Representatives to a very small majority of Democratic leaders. The Senate will most likely be controlled by the Democrats as well, pending a couple potential re-counts in Virginia and Montana and the predictable lawsuits, accusations of voter fraud, and denied court motions that are sure to follow. When the dust finally settles over the coming days and weeks, Democrats will have control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994. But what does that really mean?
From a political perspective, it means that President Bush will now be forced to deal with the Democratic leadership that has opposed much of his agenda for the past six years. Bush will also no longer have the luxury of being able to force legislation through the House and Senate using slim majorities in each. Bush has already reached out to congratulate several of the new Democratic legislators and invite them to lunches and meetings to discuss the details of their future working relationship. While these are largely empty gestures, they signal the reality that Bush is now going to be forced to compromise with his opposition.
Democrats, on the other hand, are now going to be forced to offer practical solutions to the problems that they have railed against for years, namely the war in Iraq. Before yesterday, the Democratic leadership had the luxury of simply airing justified, yet broad-based complaints about the Bush agenda and his administration’s policies. Now, they will be forced to present solutions to the existing problems and work successfully with the Bush administration to implement them. Democrats must now effectively manage the task of governing the nation.
But what about Joe Six-pack? The man on the street? “Middle-class” America? What about all of us? For us, the seismic shift in our nation’s leadership will probably mean very little. In the coming months, we’ll hear much debate on how best to move forward in Iraq and Afghanistan and in our foreign policy positions around the world. But the changes in our current approach to any foreign or domestic policy issues are unlikely to be drastic or decisive. That’s simply not how the American political machine works. And while that machine was originally designed to ensure that all decisions were reached via the most balanced and representative forum possible, the layers of American government have become so many and so thick that very little significant change is ever realized through legislation. That’s not to say that significant legislation isn’t created and passed in almost every session of congress, but the government is often too cumbersome and uncoordinated to effectively enforce new legislation. For examples of this position, see Immigration Laws, Campaign Finance Reform, and the War on Drugs.
In reality, most Americans will feel very little impact from the drastic change in their country’s leadership. Of course, there will be the hot-point issues that will dominate the political airwaves and the Internet. Conservatives will be lamenting the loss of control and spinning doomsday scenarios of the coming years under the leadership of the Democrats. Liberals will be rejoicing in their rise to power and looking forward to the prosperous utopia that their leadership is sure to deliver. In short, conservatives will be too sad and the liberals will be too happy.
It comes as no surprise that voter participation in America has steadily declined over the past four decades. During that time, every American has witnessed the minimal impact that elected government officials and the legislation they produce actually have on our daily lives and our livelihood. Whether it’s “raising taxes” or “lowering taxes” or
”balancing the budget” or “running a deficit”, most people simply don’t see a real-world impact on their routine. Although some legislation is truly well-intentioned, it still falls short of its intended effect.
One of the hot-button issues sure to be addressed in the coming months will be an increase in the national minimum wage. This is a great theoretical concept and its intentions for the improvement of our society are undeniable. Yet, who among us doesn’t think that a minimum wage increase will be negated by the corresponding rise in prices that companies will impose to off-set the increase in their labor costs? The working poor may be bring home a dollar more per hour, but the cost of their life staples will increase accordingly. The net gain will likely be zero. And although that’s only one example, it is nonetheless illustrative of how little impact our elected officials can have, especially at the national level.
At the core of the ineffectiveness of our elected leaders is the phenomenon of career politicians. Career politicians are the civil servants who so humbly decide that they would like to make a career out of their service to their country. These are the elected officials that spend the majority of their term in office posturing to get re-elected for yet another term in office. When they reach the end of a term-limit for a particular post, they begin posturing for the next position that they desire. And the process continues to repeat itself until the career politician fails to get re-elected/appointed to a new post, retires from politics to consult for a wealthy campaign contributor, or dies. Largely as a result of the pre-occupation of career politicians with getting re-elected, our government is ineffective and grotesquely wasteful on most levels.
I didn’t verify the accuracy of this assertion from an article in Capitalism Magazine, but I think it’s point is appropriate even if the numbers are not perfect:
The cost of paying every member of Congress a million dollars a year is absolutely trivial compared to the vast amounts of the taxpayers’ money wasted by cheap politicians doing things to get themselves re-elected. You could pay every member of Congress a million dollars a year for a century for less money than it costs to run the Department of Agriculture for one year.
The point of the article is that our politicians are not the best and the brightest people out there and that perhaps paying them larger salaries would attract better candidates. While I disagree with that approach, I definitely agree that something fundamental needs to change in our political system. When a bi-polar political system like ours sees a total shift in power in both houses of Congress and the likely impact is minimal, we need to start making changes that matter.
Tags: democrats, mid term elections
Entries