Bruce Bartlett writes in the NYT about the possible consequences of a Democratic victory in November (No Spoils for the Victors
With liberals like New York’s Charlie Rangel in line to head important House committees like the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, some investors are starting to worry about tax increases on the rich and business bashing-legislation. Needless to say, Republicans are doing what they can to stoke such fears.As a Republican, I have a message for those fearful of Democratic control: don’t worry. Nothing dreadful is going to happen. Liberals have much less to gain than they believe.
[...]
As for impeachment and cutting money for Iraq, such actions would be politically insane and the Democratic leadership knows it. They will make the White House pay a price for Iraq, but will ensure that they don’t get blamed for any debacle resulting from failure to provide adequate money for our troops.
Bartlett is essentially correct–our system makes radical (even just plain ol’ major) policy shifts difficult even under the best of circumstances. Divided government is hardly the best of circumstances in terms of partisan control.
He is especially correct about money for Iraq. The bottom line is that Congressional majorites often bluster about cutting funds for foreign militaty operations that they dissaprove of, yet they don’t do it–the political cost is too great. The ability of even a hostile Congress to move a President on military and foreign policy is quite limited.
Impeachment may be a possibility–although that will depend on the margins. Even beyond that formulating sufficient articles of impeachment would be a stretch. Sure, “Bush Lied and People Died” makes for a spiffy slogan and all, but it is another thing to translate that into actual charges, despite the passion some may have on the subject. Further, I would consider removal to be an impossibility. Indeed, I would argue that with the 2008 elections on the horizon, why waste political time, effort and energy on impeachment which would be better used seeking to gain the WH? And are those who might be inclined for such a move actually be willing to accept a President Cheney? I think all of that is the talk of political fantasy.
I will note that Daniel Drezner is correct as well: control of even one chamber will give the Democrats two things that have not had for some time: agenda-setting power and legislative leverage. This will be especially true if they win the House, given that the majority commands that chamber far more completely than is the case in the Senate.
Sphere: Related Content
October 18th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
And overall it could still be the best thing for Republicans to lose the house. For the next 2 years the Dems will control the agenda and the Dem candidates for 2008 will have to uphold those stances. While a Republican can run as an outsider and bash democrat ideas.
October 19th, 2006 at 8:15 am
You know Rob, I believe you - the GOP will certainly run on a platform of ‘the liberals have controlled the government for forty years’ in 2008. And half of the American people would believe it!
Getting back to the post, however, there’s one important power that wasn’t mentioned. Subpoena and investigation. This administration has had less oversight from Congress than any in many years, probably in many decades. When you consider what they’ve been caught at, with no oversight, makes you wonder what’s really going on.
Getting sunlight into this administration could be the most important thing.
October 19th, 2006 at 8:47 am
My guess is that if the Dems gain control of the House, but not the Senate, there is very little “radical reform” (substantially raising taxes, cutting funds to the military, impeachment etc.) that would happen. What absolutely would happen though is immediate oversight of the administration by Congress. And although the GOP will say that this is a vendetta or something, my sense is that the american people would welcome some Congressional oversight.
October 19th, 2006 at 9:01 am
I would basically agree with that assessment.
October 19th, 2006 at 11:54 am
The margins probably won’t be enough for “meaningful” legislation to pass anyway, so investigation central is about all we can expect. Certainly the Dems won’t have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
October 19th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
The case for impeachment would not be terribly challenging to make (in fact, it’s been made). And while removal, as in a 2/3 vote in the Senate, appears out of reach, don’t rule out the possibility of the GOP being the one that fears the consequences for 2008 and ditches the administration. (No, that is not a prediction, but a statement that one can’t assume that because the president’s party has more than 1/3 of the seats, removal–or, more likely, resignation–is out of the question.)
But on the taxes and other legislative agendas, of course those claims by Republicans ignore what the GOP in 1995 also seemed to forget: The president has a veto, no matter what happens in a midterm election.
October 19th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Talmage,
No only will the margins be small, the newly elected Dems will be more Conservative than the current ones, and the President will still have the veto.
Plus for the Democrats in the House, the day after the election, assuming they win, they will start worrying about the 2008 election, especially those Distriocts were they outperformed voter registration. Investigating the adminstration is the best way to keep GOP poll numbers low, while not really scarring the voting public.
And besides, only the most hardcore Repubs can say that Congress has conducted any oversight over the Administration.
October 19th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Pelosi’s World
Less Jail Time for Selling Crack Cocaine - H.R. 2456: Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and 23 Democratic cosponsors want to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for possessing, importing, and distributing crack cocaine. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of the…