Why Should I Care Which Party Controls Either House After November?

[AuntiePinko]

Dear Auntie Pinko,

I've thought long and hard about what might happen over the next two years if the Democrats win a majority in one or both houses next month and every scenario I can think of is sadly underwhelming.

Above all else, the most important issue facing this country today is the war in Iraq.

George W. Bush has basically stated that changing course will be up to the next president and Rahm Emanuel has so stacked the Democratic deck with hawks (so we won't look weak) that I don't expect any change whatsoever -- except that at the current rate, by January 2009, we will have lost another 2,000 service members, maimed another 12,000 and killed another several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians.

Of the other things that concern me and many people who post here:

I expect the Patriot Act to remain completely intact. I don't expect any legislative reversals on Military tribunals, the suspension of habeas corpus, or any new limits on the president's ability to spy on American citizens.

I don't expect Democrats to raise taxes or reverse any of the current tax cuts, so I expect the Federal Budget will continue to run out of control.

Why am I so pessimistic? Because I expect Democrats will do exactly what they say they are going to do in their campaigns -- and I can't name a single candidate who has promised to do anything about the aforementioned.

I do expect Democrats will pass legislation to raise the minimum wage and make a few adjustments to the prescription drug benefit. But beyond those very popular measures, I don't expect (with a razor thin majority) much else to pass.

I expect with subpoena power, that Democrats will hold some investigations. A little more transparency will return to government and that is a good thing. But is that really enough to excite me to go to the polls?

So my question is this. With no real promise of serious change, why should I care which party controls either house after November?

Richard
Dallas, TX


Dear Richard,

This is a trick question, right? You’re not really trying to imply that leaving the Republican Party in charge of all three branches of government is just as good an option as getting Democratic control of at least one branch? You’re just fishing for another “jazz up the Get Out The Vote effort with some cheerleading from Auntie,” aren’t you, you sly fellow.

Well, I’m happy to oblige. Please don’t take any of the following personally, since I know you were just trying to provoke a little earnest sermonizing. So imagine an alter ego for yourself who isn’t too bright, and pretend I’m talking to him.

The most enormously important thing that will happen if Democrats control at least one house of Congress after the election is simply this: Things will stop getting worse. And they can get very much worse, without something happening to put a check on Mr. Bush’s unconstitutional, self-aggrandizing cabal of kleptocrats. There are a great many items still on their agenda — everything from robbing Americans of our public parks, wilderness areas, and protected environments for the sake of unrestricted resource extraction, to denying women the most fundamental control over decisions affecting their health and their very lives. Additional tax cuts for the wealthiest one-tenth of one percent of Americans. Dismantling Social Security and funneling Americans’ retirement funds into the pockets of big Wall Street brokerage firms and banks.

A Democratic Congress will prevent all of these disasters, and that alone makes the trip to the polls to push the “D” buttons worthwhile.

You are correct that regardless of who controls Congress, the Executive Branch retains control over the military through the President’s role as Commander in Chief, and controls the machinery of Federal law enforcement and bureaucracy. That control cannot change for two years, short of removing Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney from office, a contingency that seems remote, at this point.

But two years is a short time in the cycle of America’s political pendulum, and the momentum is moving in the Democratic direction. A Democratic Congress can do a lot to keep that momentum and increase it, especially as hearings and oversight bring the harsh spotlight of reality to the dark corners where this Administration has stashed all kinds of inconvenient truths. The more that comes out about war profiteering by friends and associates of this Administration and Republican elected officials, the more that is revealed about sleazy quids-pro-quo with public lands and resources, the more facts that come to light about the real harm done to real people by their irresponsible policies, the more likely it will be that Democrats will control the Executive Branch after 2008, and be able to halt and begin reversing some of these abuses.

And a Democratic Congress can lay the ground work for that cleanup. Raising the minimum wage is an enormously important step to restoring the ability of working people to support families. There are a dozen other small-seeming technical changes that a Democratic-controlled Congress can make that will help re-empower labor, halt the hemorrhage of jobs overseas, boost the ability of small businesses to compete, and give families a better chance of securing the economic future of their children, even if the Federal debt continues to grow under Mr. Bush’s administration.

It has taken nearly thirty years for the GOP to wreak the destruction they have wrought on America’s families and communities, on our Constitution and our civil liberties, on the social contract that once supported all of us, and on the capacity of America to act with influence and effectiveness in world affairs. In the process, they have re-shaped the public discourse, skewed our perceptions of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ into unrecognizable caricatures, and castrated, co-opted, or subverted the free press that is such an important tool of our self-government. No Democrat or group of Democrats, no matter how passionately devoted to progressive ideals, is going to change that overnight, and if they try, they will be wasting a lot of valuable energy.

Nor should we try. To govern by imposing the power of majority without regard to differing views, in a display of brute, vindictive force, is no better for America when Democrats do it than when Republicans do it. It will take a sustained effort and great patience to rebuild the mechanisms of effective self-governance. Our Federal government is a vast, unwieldy machine that can change direction only slowly. We’d like it to turn on a dime, but trying would be as foolish as maneuvering an 18-wheel semi-trailer like a NASCAR racer.

It’s very easy to sit on the sidelines, and say “This is what they should do, why don’t they just DO it?” But if you examine the process of government closely you can see just how unrealistic that is. Everything you propose or do or say has a legion of unintended consequences, and no matter how carefully you try to focus your efforts, all the elements of government and our economy and our foreign policy are so interconnected that even the simplest bill or law ripples out to create effects far beyond its focus.

Effecting real, sustainable change must come in small increments, carefully tested and allowed to settle in before the next step is taken. The American people don’t like change— for heaven’s sakes, look how long it has taken for the accumulation of disastrous incompetence and venality to gin our fellow-citizens up to where a Congressional turnover seems likely! We have an enormous capacity for enduring a miserable status quo in preference to the uncertainty of change. Democrats who arrive in a blaze of determination to undo everything the GOP has done over the last thirty years, in a single two-year Congress, will get roundly rejected in their turn by an electorate who feel pushed to the limits of endurance as it is.

All many — perhaps most— Americans really want is relief from the worst of the corruption, incompetence, and scandal, so they can go back to feeling good about our country. The implications of that relief, in terms of real change, are within a hairsbreadth as worrisome as letting the status quo go on. There are tough challenges of communicating and restoring public understanding and trust to be addressed, or change won’t be tolerated at all, and the conflict and deadlock will continue and things will go on deteriorating. And the sooner we get into a position where we can address those challenges and start that process, the sooner America will see some real relief.

That’s the essential choice, Richard. Let pessimism immobilize you and convince you that nothing you can do will make any difference, and the GOP has won again, the madness continues unchecked, and I really don’t want to think about where we’ll end up. Square your shoulders and focus and vote for Democrats, and you’re right, you won’t see an instant magical transformation. But you will halt the rake’s progress that is dragging our nation into debt, bankruptcy, and disreputability. You will be starting the long, slow process of making things better for our children and grandchildren.

It’s your call, and thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

[aquart]

1. Dear Auntie Pinko:

You're so much more rational, reasonable, and patient than I am.

[PurpleChez]

2. Thanks, Auntie!

Since 2000 we've seen where "they're really just the same" has taken us. One of the problems of Dems/Libs/Progs is that too many of us demand perfection on the part of our candidates. Repugs would vote for a certifiable imbicile if that's what was on the ballot (heck...they've already done that), but some lefties seem to WANT a reason not to support "our guys." ("Sure, he's pro-choice, but he's not pro-choice enough, so I guess I just won't vote....")

[GeorgeGist]

3. Dear Auntie Pinko,

Above all else, the most important issue facing this country today is George Bush and his fellow-travelers.

As far as I can see the vast majority of Democrats don't see that.

[j_gregory1948]

4. Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky

are asking the same question.

In fact Gore Vidal says "there's only one party in America today, with two wings, the conservative wing, known as Democrats, and the reactionary wing, known as Republicans."

Let's hope this changes if Dems take over.

[pberq]

5. Exactly true!

On Democracy Now yesterday, Amy Goodman interviewed a Green Party candidate for Senate in Washington state, who said that the Cantwell campaign attempted to bribe him not to run. The reason being that the conservative Democrat Cantwell is pro-war, and of course the Green Party candidate is running on a platform of ending the war ASAP.

So the progressive views held by a large segment of the population are not allowed into the discussion.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/25/1422243

Wednesday, October 25th, 2006
Green Politics: Anti-War Washington Senatorial Candidate Says Dems Tried to Bribe Him Not to Run

<snip>
. . .AMY GOODMAN: So, are you saying they tried to bribe you?

AARON DIXON: Yeah. I received at least three or four calls from Mr. Wilson and someone else in Maria Cantwell’s camp on a regular basis about dropping out.

AMY GOODMAN: Why do you think they see you as a threat? How close is the race?

AARON DIXON: Well, I think because of what happened with Ted Lamont defeating --

AMY GOODMAN: Ned Lamont.

AARON DIXON: -- Ned Lamont, excuse me, defeating Lieberman, I think that there was some concern that, because of Maria Cantwell’s support on the war, that she would possibly be in trouble and that her Republican challenger, Mike McGavick, seemed to be running a well organized campaign. . . .

[John Gauger]

8. Dammit.

I hate that shit. Why do the Dems insist on running a horrible candidate? They are really making voting Dem hard. I'm lucky, my House candidate is really a true liberal and a good man. He is not a clothespin vote. But for Senate, Casey is a bigtime clothespin vote. I have not yet made up my mind, but if the race was closer, I would have to vote for him because we really need to take back the Senate. Normally, I don't compromise on my ideals, but Bush is really threatening the very existence of this country. Six years ago there was no substantive difference between the two parties, but that has gone out the window. Corporate and environmental issues take a back seat to the existence of my beloved country. They really put us in a hard position.

[Jim Lane]

9. Wrong! Have these people never heard of PRIMARIES?

"So the progressive views held by a large segment of the population are not allowed into the discussion." Amy Goodman's mention of Ned Lamont refutes this conclusion. Where there's a large segment of the population whose views aren't represented by the incumbent or by the Republican challenger, the incumbent can be challenged in the Democratic primary.

In the vast majority of general-election races, there'll be only two candidates who have a realistic chance of winning. You can readily identify more than two significant points of view (as seen from disputes within each major party). Therefore, some opinions won't make it to the general election. The primaries exist to select the final two. If the anti-war sentiment in Washington State were widespread and strong, then this Green Party clown (or someone else to Cantwell's left) could've become the Democratic nominee.

Another contributor to this thread disparaged Casey as "a bigtime clothespin vote" (presumably because he's bad on reproductive rights). Well, I'm pro-choice myself -- but the fact is that there were a couple of pro-choice candidates in the Democratic primary, and Casey clobbered them (i.e., got many more votes). There are a lot of religious Democrats who oppose Bush generally but who also oppose abortion. For once, they don't have to cast a clothespin vote.

I don't know whether Vidal (quoted in post #4) is characterizing folks like Lamont and Kucinich and Feingold and Boxer as "conservative". Of course, they aren't typical of the Democratic Party -- but that's because other progressive Democrats have often lost in primaries, or faced such long odds that they didn't even run. Those odds become longer when some of our natural allies abandon the fight and petulantly stomp off to the political irrelevance of the Green Party.

[pberq]

16. Please consider watching the Democracy Now show

from Wednesday. After seeing the interview, you may not be referring to Aaron Dixon as a "Green Party clown".

You seem to be in favor of the lock on the system currently enjoyed by the Democractic and Republican parties.

Although I am a strong supporter of many Democrats in Congress and elsewhere, and vote Democratic, I don't think the country is being served well by excluding Green party candidates and others from debates.

[Jim Lane]

17. Minor-party candidates in debates

In the 2004 election (as an example), there were fourteen candidates for President, according to http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm|this list>. If candidates with no realistic chance of winning were included in the debates, the debates would become useless in terms of providing the vast majority of voters with the information they really want.

The way for other points of view to be included in the public discourse is for the proponents to run in the primaries. That's what Nader should have done in 2000. He probably wouldn't have won, but he would've had a better shot at becoming President that way than as the Green Party candidate. He also would've been included in the Bradley-Gore debates and reached more people with his ideas than he actually did.

"You seem to be in favor of the lock on the system currently enjoyed by the Democractic and Republican parties." I'm in favor of a system in which the parties' status is determined by the overall votes, not by Gore Vidal's preferences. I would love it if the two leading parties were the Democrats on the right and the Greens on the left, but that's not the world I live in.

[pberq]

18. minor party candidates excluded from debates

"I'm in favor of a system in which the parties' status is determined by the overall votes, not by Gore Vidal's preferences."

Help me understand what you are saying here. Does this mean that the status of any party other than Democrat and Republican is determined by how many votes they receive?

If this is what you mean, let me quote something from the Democracy Now show:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/25/1422220

". . .AMY GOODMAN: Well, your response to Mr. Rubenstein telling the audience that third party and independent candidates were not invited, because voters have traditionally stuck with the Republican and Democratic parties?

MICHAEL BERG: You know, it’s kind of a Catch-22. What they say is that there isn’t enough voter interest in us, but they won’t let the voters see us so that they can become interested in us. The whole thing is set up and run by Democrats and Republicans, and it keeps us out. Mike Castle had earlier indicated -- he’s the Republican incumbent -- he had earlier indicated that he thought that all candidates should be allowed to speak, and there was some possibility that he wasn’t going to go to any forum where they wouldn’t allow us to speak, but tonight he will debate Dennis Spivack, the Democrat, and Karen Hartley-Nagle and I will be barred from it. . ."

So, given that third party candidates are excluded from debates, even when a group like the League of Women Voters has determined that they are legitimate, how is it possible that a third party would meet your test of some minimum number of votes? Included in this is the fact that the MSM covers only Democrats and Republicans.

[Jim Lane]

19. How to beat the Catch-22

"Help me understand what you are saying here. Does this mean that the status of any party other than Democrat and Republican is determined by how many votes they receive?"

No, it's a bit more complicated. Everyone's status under the First Amendment is the same. All parties have equal rights to campaign without governmental interference. The private organizations that sponsor most debates aren't subject to the First Amendment, though; they have the right to decide whom to invite. They sometimes invite minor-party candidates, and, yes, that's often based on the number of votes the party has received or is expected to receive. Perot was in the nationally televised Presidential debates. Some minor-party candidates have appeared in debates for state and local offices. (Even the fledgling "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party managed to qualify!) Different sponsoring organizations use different criteria, but I think one standard is to invite every candidate who has drawn support of at least 15% in some reputable independent poll. That criterion could be criticized as being too generous to minor parties (even Perot had very little chance to win) or too harsh on them (candidates without Perot's wealth usually can't reach even 15% unless they get a lot of free media, such as debate participation). I believe that some such compromise is necessary, though. Debates shouldn't be automatically restricted to the two major parties but shouldn't degenerate into 14-way food fights. I also think it's sensible that the compromise criterion be based on widespread support rather than on Vidal's or your or my view of the candidates' ideologies.

More important with regard to this "Catch-22" argument is the point that I included in my original subject line, in all caps no less, but that you haven't even mentioned in two replies to me. The major parties no longer select their candidates by dealmaking among party bosses in smoke-filled rooms. We have these things called PRIMARIES. Incumbents of course have the advantage -- but if the current set of options offered by the major parties leaves some significant opinion unrepresented, people can challenge that set of options and can sometimes win.

Even if challengers don't win immediately, they can get exposure for their ideas. I gave the example of Nader in 2000. Leave aside the spoiler issue for the moment. (Suppose, for example, that Bush hadn't been able to steal Florida, and that Gore became President despite the political harm done to him by Nader's candidacy.) You still have the choice between (1) Nader as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, appearing in multiple debates against Bradley and Gore, and having multiple opportunities to talk in detail about corporate misconduct and other substantive themes; or (2) Nader as a minor-party candidate, occasionally being glimpsed in the parking lot outside a debate venue, complaining about not being included. Which course would have done more to advance progressive ideas among American voters? I think it's obvious that the first alternative would have been more effective.

In 2004 Nader received 464,000 votes. Yes, he would've received more if he'd been in the televised debates. The Libertarian Party candidate, Michael Badnarik, received 397,000 votes, and he also would have benefited from such exposure. These were nationally televised debates that were watched by millions of people (who primarily wanted to hear Bush and Kerry). If that show had been the occasion for the gift of free air time to the Prohibition Party candidate, then he would've gotten more votes than he actually did. That doesn't mean that the Prohibition Party is being unfairly oppressed by a Catch-22.

[j_gregory1948]

12. I heard the entire interview

people on DU would be doing themselves a favor if they listened to Democracy Now more often than they listen to Air America.

[Maryland Liberal]

6. Impeachment

That control cannot change for two years, short of removing Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney from office, a contingency that seems remote, at this point.

Yea it seems remote- but it doesnt have to be. Right now we are sweating out if we will take the Senate (we already know we have the House)Impeachment is the way to NATIONALIZE these elctions.Its a no-brainer. If 60% of Americans disapprove of the way the Bushie is doing his job -then IMPEACHMENT is the logical thing to do. I hope speaker pelosi will change her mind. 60% aint too far from 66%.

[Mojekearthe]

11. Impeachment is in the bag

Not to worry. Once we have our majorities in both the House and Senate, Pelosi will come around. After all, it's HER presidency to pursue, so she has a vested interest in seeing that justice is done.

In extension, we need to seriously consider indicting not just Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Hastert, and all the major repug criminals, but into initiating RICO charges against the Republican Party as a whole. Keep in mind, that a political party professes to represent people's inherent right to expressing their views. But the republican party has morphed from being a party with bad ideas, to establishing itself as an organization that, without question, is the most evil, despotic organization in the history of the planet. Adolf Hitler never this much control over the lives of billions of people, with so few people living off the sweat and happenstance of their lives. That alone should relegate the republican party as an organization that needs to be broken up.

As to all of you yahoos who think that "we CAN'T suppress the views of anyone, no matter how vile they are!", I frankly don't GIVE a damn about an organization that rapes this planet, enforces racist banishments, steals money from the productive, and kills hundreds of millions of people directly through its myopic policies, and that alone leads us to consider the OBVIOUS fact: the republican party MUST be destroyed, along with all its criminal members. We have ENOUGH diversity of thought in the Democratic, Green, various socialist countries, and international consensus to assure REAL democracy is conducted. The republican party IS the ONLY REASON that we have as much death and destruction of mind, body, and spirit, in the world today.

[John Gauger]

7. Auntie is quite right.

Even if the 110th Congress has no positive accomplishments, it will, for the most part, stop things from getting worse. I want things to start getting better soon too, but if all we can get right now is a cessation of regression then that's what we'll have to accept. Not to bring out the Nazi comparison, but if Hitler was replaced in 1938 with someone less aggressive, World War Two would have been averted. If his replacement doesn't invade Poland, there is no war. The Jews are still in ghettos and concentration camps, and the political environment is still repressive, but at least there is no war. Things have stopped getting worse, which is an important achievement. If the deterioration of the situation is halted, progress can be more safely pursued. It's not ideal, and it is a hard pill to swallow, but it is necessary. (Of course, this assumes that Stalin doesn't start a war, and it doesn't stop FDR from embargoing Japan in '41, so we are still at war after Pearl Harbor. But you get the point. The Nazi comparison is always a little off-kilter anyway.)

What's more, I think a Democratic Congress will have some positive accomplishments. Let's remember that they are politicians; just because it doesn't look like they are going to pull out now, they can always be forced to pull out later. If for no other reason, we should hall vote Democratic in our House election because a Dem majority puts John Conyers, Jr. in the chair's seat of the Judiciary Committee. Besides being one of the few genuinely good Congressmen, he is our best chance for impeachment. That's enough for me to vote for my local Dem.

[DeeDeeNY]

10. Beautifully put

This line really troubles me -- "But is that really enough to excite me to go to the polls?"
I didn't realize that one needs extra excitement to exercise such an important right.
I've heard this type of statement before and I've never understood it.

[sui generis]

14. the problem with not "understanding" it is that we fail to address it

there are dyed in the wool democrats who somehow fail to get to the polls every single election. I can't tell you how many people here in Reddest NASCAR Ft. Worth who bleated about how wonderful Georgie is nevertheless failed to get to the polls two years ago.

How many democrats are there in the U.S.? How many vote?

How many vote on a midterm?

These are excruciatingly important questions to ask, along with, why not? When we address those problems without judgement or rancor, we find a way to maybe get the unwilling to the polls as well as the willing.

When we give up trying to understand, we give up.

[sui generis]

13. Auntie was right about Richard "fishing"

I know this for a fact because that's my baby (:loveya:) and we talked about this last Friday trying to put ourselves in the minds of many who espouse these "on the street" rationalizations we've heard.

The problem isn't in the rationalizations, or the fact that Richard as author combined them in a writing exercise, but that there really are people who say and even believe one or more of these things. As Aquart said, Auntie has a great deal more patience and much more well considered response than most of us can furnish in a verbal response. Auntie also recognized the rhetorical tone - someone who really "didn't care" wouldn't trouble themselves to write.

The problem is that these sentiments are fairly common - and if we as a party want to overcome that ennui we have to address these abominations of our democracy as well as the "core" platform issues we face going forward. Yes Virginia, there ARE skeptics. There are disillusioned Democrats and Progressives and Liberals that we have to reach, who are asking these very questions.

I like this argument the best: "if pessimism immobilizes you, the GOP has won again"; it is the prod of being a victim of the GOP again that may finally sway someone to rationalize themselves to the polls.

[Filius Nullius]

15. It's the voting machines, Stupid!

Something I believe we have all forgotten about is the Republicans' control over the vote count through their ability to activate malicious code previously inserted in voting machines and tabulators in key voting precincts. At this very moment, Karl Rove has begun his campaign to brainwash the media into believing that his predictions of an emerging groundswell of Republican voters are correct due to his access to much more precise and numerous polling data than the average national media person can tap. They are simply going to steal yet another election and convince the media that it did not happen. Does anyone know whether CNN and the other members of the network polling consortium are planning to make exit poll data available to the American public on election night?

[codejack]

20. You missed the point

I have been desperately searching for a reason to vote democratic this year, and so far I have been underwhelmed. The main issues are the "patriot act", the war in Iraq, education, and the economy; What are the democrats saying on these issues except "me too!" to whatever the republicans say? I care about other issues, but I would rather hold out for someone who wants to fix the country, and not just control the damage.

Here's what to do if you want my vote: Come out publicly against the "patriot act", declare your intentions to get us out of Iraq as soon as possible, oppose the "no child left behind act", and promise to hold hearings on charges of corruption and profiteering by energy companies and defense contractors. Until I see this, I'll hold out for better.