A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
May 26, 2005Democratic "Leadership?"If this analysis in The Atlantic is correct, the Democrats are in deep trouble for the foreseeable future. Joshua Green completely pans Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as being, for all intents and purposes, totally ineffectual and incapable of managing a Democratic resurgence. Pelosi and Reid both maintain that they expect the Democrats to win back the House and the Senate next year, and after that the presidency. But their failure to manage their own party's chairmanship race, coupled with an aggressive Republican majority, has left many less sanguine. What seems to be most troubling is that Pelosi, especially, seems to think that history is on the Democrats' side and that will be sufficient to win back the House. Pelosi bases her belief in the inevitability of a Republican downfall on historical precedent: in the midterm elections of a president's sixth year (which Bush reaches next year) his party typically loses congressional seats. "There is an average loss of twenty-eight or twenty-nine [House] seats for the sitting president's party," she points out. "We don't go by history, but the fact is that it is in our favor." If that pattern holds true in 2006, the loss will be more than enough to put the Democrats in the majority and make Pelosi the first-ever female speaker. But as Green points out, this is nonsense because the changing political landscape makes relying on history pointless. There aren't many competitive races because of gerrymandering so it would be almost impossible for the Democrats to win enough seats to take back the House in 2006. Plus, it ignores the fact that the Republicans gained seats in 2004 and, of course, reelected a president. this grim scenario makes the Democrats' choice of leaders somewhat puzzling. Reid and Pelosi both apprenticed as whip, a job that requires corralling and cajoling fellow congressmen to support the party line. But circumstances now demand Democratic leaders who can win outside Congress. That will require abandoning the party line for a new course, which Reid and Pelosi are unequipped to do. Many members of Congress say privately that the real energy and tactical smarts in the party are concentrated in two recent arrivals, Representative Rahm Emanuel, of Illinois, and Senator Charles Schumer, of New York—both of them rising in party ranks and estimation. I'm not sure what new course Green thinks they need and I suspect that's part of the problem. No one really has a an idea of what new course to chart that would be acceptable both to moderates and to liberals. I suspect Schumer would likely want to move the party to the left. Nevertheless, the incompetence of the Democrats is mind-boggling. They just don't seem to get that this is not 1974 anymore and that people aren't going to vote for them because of some divine right to govern. Posted by Marc W. Schneider at May 26, 2005 11:38 AMComments
It gets to the point where it's hard to tell who's obliging the other side more in its choice of leaders, eh? Crudeness alert! Butters, which is funnier? A stupid not-funny giant douche or a super funny turd sandwich? Posted by: bk at May 26, 2005 01:06 PMTrue, true. As much as Tom DeLay's politics scare me, his face--when observed in a serene screen shot with the sound off--isn't that frightening. Denny Hastert looks just like everyone's favorite grandfather. Nancy Pelosi on the other hand...I chuckle just about every time I see her. I assume that she must have used Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon. Her face is always frozen in a permament smile. When she first came to power, I assumed she was just an excited, happy member of Congress; however, as I've observed her, I've notice the smile never fades...it's pulled so tight it's more like a grimace. Okay, now that I've panned her personal appearance, the politics of the leadership on both sides of the aisles (in both chambers) are rather narrow. Remember the days of Bob Dole and George Mitchell? It really wasn't that long ago. Posted by: AR at May 26, 2005 01:50 PMThis was exactly the same smug argument they used going into the 2002 midterm elections - "well, the President always loses votes in a midterm". Well, indeed, the President does usually lose seats in both chambers midterm, which only goes to more starkly highlight the beating the Dems took. It's not true to say that it's impossible that the Dems will take back the House, and I realize that this isn't what Marc is saying here. But I do think that many of the institutional problems faced by the Democrats shortly before the Contract with America - hubris, arrigance and a perception of corruption - could be used by a skillfull leader to produce democrat gains in the midterms, or at least to render safe seats more contestable. That having been said though, Nancy Pelosi is no Newt Gingrich, in my view. Posted by: Simon at May 26, 2005 04:15 PMWell, actually, I didn't say it but the author himself said it would be virtually impossible for the Dems to take back the House before 2012. I don't know if that's true, but his point is there are not enough competitive seats to allow them to make up such a large deficit. I think Green's point is that the leadership has no plan one way or the other. They seem content to sit back and count of some inevitable dissatisfaction with the GOP to bring people back to the Democrats. But the GOP is a master of fixing its own problems and getting out its base. Posted by: MWS at May 26, 2005 04:58 PMGot to remember that the Republicans in 1994 ran on Democrat corruption AND the Contract for America. What are the Democrats offering? What new ideas do they even have? I really think that they think their calcified vietnam-era/Great Society ideas are good enough and that their loss of power is just some fluke and/or scam engineered by Karl Rove. They'll probably have to lose in 2006 and 2008 before they figure it out. Which is a shame, because I think the Republicans are generally doing a piss-poor job. I just think the current Reid/Pelosi Dems would be even worse. Posted by: alan at May 26, 2005 10:03 PMWell, I think bigger even than the Contract With America was the health care issue. The Clinton Administration handled their reform very badly-- from the First Lady chairing the meetings in secrecy to her absolute refusal to negotiate with the GOP on any of the plan's controversial points. Bill Kristol, on the other hand, whispered in everyone's ears that the Republicans simply had to deny that there was anything wrong with the nation's health care, and they would win. In a way, this might not bode well for the Republicans as they attempt a bold grand experiment of their own-- Social Security reform. The Democrats may be able to win on the merits of denying that Social Security is in such a condition that it needs to be risked-- a message that could resonate with a lot of older voters (who obviously aren't very good at math)... Posted by: Bobby at May 27, 2005 09:15 AMWell, Alan, let's remember that the "Contract On America" (oops, a slip there--NOT!) wasn't rolled out until the fall of 1994--early enough for the fall campaign, but too late for the Dems to counter. By the way, what exactly are the GOP's "new ideas" that are so formidable? From what I've seen, their platform consists mainly of rolling back Roe vs. Wade, rolling back Social Security, rolling back environmental protection, rolling back safety standards, and rolling back just about every other idea of the New Deal. That would put the clock back to about 1931--far older than the much derided Great Society. Posted by: Blue Jean at May 27, 2005 10:36 PMEnvironmentalism was part of the New Deal?!? Gee, I thought it was Nixon who created the EPA! The first significant "environmental" legislations were in late 1940's. And the creation of national parks and national forests dates to the late 19th century. It's not "rolling back" something to fix it so it doesn't roll itself back even more drastically. Broken things need fixing to keep working at all. One of the buzz-concepts of environmentalism is "sustainability." Why is that concept not applicable to social programs? Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2005 10:55 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
