How Secure is the Victory For Democrats?

In my last two postings I address first the question of bipartisanship and explained it is unlikely that there will be much bipartisanship, if any. In the following commentary I queried whether the new so-called conservative members are likely to push the Democratic Party to the Right and concluded with a resounding NO.

Now I address just how secure the victory for the Democrats is. A look at history is instructive in how much a great victory carries over to the next election.

For this purpose I go back to the historic election of 1946. The President was Harry Truman and at that time, hardly more than three weeks before the midterm elections his approval rating dropped to 32 percent. As the reader will quickly surmise, there is a parallel here to the unpopularity of President Bush prior to the just concluded midterm elections. I should add that there was another similarity to the election now. The Democrats then had a lock on the Southern vote, just as Republicans have now.

The results of the elections of 1946 were that in the House Republicans picked up 54 seats. The GOP wound up with a 59-member dominance over the Democrats. When the new Congress convened in January, Republicans occupied 75 percent of the seats outside the South. That is a far greater victory than Democrats achieved in this election

Just as in this election, it was doubtful that Democrats could win the Senate with only one third of the Senate up for election, but Republicans picked up 13 seats to take control of the chamber, 51 to 45. Compare this to the five seats that Democrats picked up in the Senate and the approximately thirty seats they picked up in the House.

In addition the unpopular Republican President Bush will not encumber the Republican ticket in the next election. Two years after that disastrous election for the Democrats, the very same Democratic incumbent President, Harry Truman, would lead the ticket.

But a lot can happen in two years. In fact a lot can happen in one campaign. . When 1948 came Truman campaigned vigorously against the "do-nothing, good-for-nothing 80th Congress," while largely ignoring the Republican nominee, Governor Dewey. In November 1948, to the astonishment of almost everyone (Who can forget the headline, “DEWEY WINS”) and to the consternation of Republicans, Truman won reelection and Democrats recaptured Congress. They picked up nine seats in the Senate and so many seats in the House that they not only recouped their 1946 losses, but also erased all gains made by the GOP in three previous elections. Of the 50 Republican newcomers in the House in 1946 who ran for reelection, 35 went down to defeat.

Can history repeat itself in reverse? I fear that it can.

Can Democrats avoid this? I believe that they can but the point is that nothing can be taken for granted. Democrats must be prudent. Whether they achieve anything or not they must not be seen as “a do nothing Congress.” Investigations will be useful, but for the most part they will only make the outgoing Administration, which is not running for reelection look even worse than they do now. But if there is one thing we can count on, Republicans will be running away from this Administration; they are already doing so. So it will be difficult to run against the record of this Administration. It will have to be based on the record of this Congress, and if they accomplish nothing, they will have to show that they did their best and that Republican obstructionism is to blame. They will have one advantage by being in the majority. They will control the agenda.

Well then what are Democrats to do? As important as the Iraq war was in this last election one other issue may very well have been more important; and that is the issue of corruption. Democrats cannot; must not shilly-shally around on this issue. The possibility that Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic Speaker, might have picked Alcee Hastings, a man who had once been impeached and removed for taking a bribe while a federal judge would have been a disastrous beginning.

Now Pelosi faces a new dilemma. Representative William Jefferson, Dem. of New Orleans has been reelected to his seat. He was the Democrat who hid $90,000 in his freezer. He has argued that it has been about a year since the money was found and no indictment has been handed down, proving he is innocent. All it proves that the evidence to support an indictment has not been found, but that hardly puts him above suspicion, and Democrats must show that they stand for Congressman being above suspicion. This is a hard one politically. Jefferson was just reelected by his constituents-he is black and probably will have the support of much of the black caucus in Congress, but the Democrats must show that to serve in a Congress they control, one must be above suspicion. The House has the power under the Constitution to refuse to seat members who they do not consider qualified. Democrats must refuse to seat Jefferson. The fall out within the Party will be much less, than the fallout among the American people if they seat him.

The other scandal that Democrats must address is earmarks. That is not to say that all projects that are covered by earmarks are necessarily bad, but members of Congress should approve no expenditure without full committee approval, a full vetting by the Congress and a vote on the merits. Simply, revealing who inserted the earmark is not reform. Pork will always be around, but it should never be within the control of any one member, or be inserted in the dead of night, or out of the public view, and certainly not out of the view of all the members of the Congress.

That will be a good start but Democrats need to do much more.