REASON TO HOPE
Josh Marshall has been teasing us with this line all day:
Bill Clinton's first two years. It is generally accepted that '93 and '94 were Clinton's worst two years, and it was those years that set up the Republican takeover in the 94 midterms. What made those two years different from the other six? He had strong Democratic majorities in congress. That alone isn't a problem, in fact it's a strong asset for a president to have congress on his side in terms of his agenda. But what happened when Clinton took office was that it was the first time the Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches for a long time. The more progressive Democratic base saw this as their big opportunity to get their agenda passed. The prime example that everyone remembers is universal health care (which was, and still is an excellent idea, not that the current fascist congress will ever give half a shit about the 30-40million Americans without access to health care).
The result of this was that universal health care, while again a good idea, was slimed by the Republicans with all their might as -- gasp! -- "socialist", and it never made it to a vote. The GOP accomplished their mission there, which was to not let it "play in Peoria". So as a result, undecided voters -- lied to by Republicans who said that universal health care would have drastically raised the average American's taxes -- turned on Clinton and the Democrats. This is how we got Newt Gingrich and the Republican Contract For (on) America.
My thinking (and possibly that of Marshall) is that a similar process could happen to Bush and the Republican congress, perhaps even to a greater degree. The most conservative wing of the Republican party -- the extra-chromosome Falwell/Robertson/Limbaugh assholes -- are licking their chops, seeing that the GOP controls essentially all three branches of government. The far right sees this as an opportunity to turn their agenda into reality: Drilling in Alaska, the end of abortion rights, corporate deregulation, deregulation in general, privatization of social security, confirming "strict constructionist" judges and justices, more infiltration of our private lives (except with guns, of course!), rolling back civil rights, rolling back environmental standards, ending the estate tax for good, making their reverse-Robinhood tax cuts permanent, passing even more tax cuts, and bombing whatever the fuck countries they feel like.
Will they have the votes for this stuff? Yes, a lot of it.
Is this a good agenda? Hell no, IMO, and that of any other sane person.
But more importantly: Is this a popular agenda?
Not in particular.
And that will be the Republicans' undoing. Their agenda, played out in all its full colors (well, just white), will be seen as repulsive in the eyes of swing voters across America, people who care about civil rights and the environment and other important issues. And 2004 could be much more dangerous for George W Bush than 94 was for Bill Clinton. Why? Because Bush is running for president in 04, while Clinton had two years to fight after the Republican takeover. If I'm Karl Rove (and thank Jebus I'm not), I'd be worried.
One problem, of course, is that this is going to take a strong effort from the Democrats to work out. They need to have a strong, positive agenda of their own. They need to take clear stances on issues (stances that are easily understandable for the stupid undecideds who decide every election these days), put themselves out there, and not just be the opposition party. Also, they need to find some real possibles for 04, and they had better soon. Not Kerrey, probably not Edwards, and definitely not Lieberman.
Anyway, the main thrust of my point is, as Jesse says: Keep hope alive!
Josh Marshall has been teasing us with this line all day:
But there is a faint silver lining here. I think these results are actually bad for President Bush's reelection prospects in 2004. We'll be saying more about this ...Well, he's been teasing us long enough, so based on my hunch, here's what I think is on his mind, because it's on my mind as well:
Bill Clinton's first two years. It is generally accepted that '93 and '94 were Clinton's worst two years, and it was those years that set up the Republican takeover in the 94 midterms. What made those two years different from the other six? He had strong Democratic majorities in congress. That alone isn't a problem, in fact it's a strong asset for a president to have congress on his side in terms of his agenda. But what happened when Clinton took office was that it was the first time the Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches for a long time. The more progressive Democratic base saw this as their big opportunity to get their agenda passed. The prime example that everyone remembers is universal health care (which was, and still is an excellent idea, not that the current fascist congress will ever give half a shit about the 30-40million Americans without access to health care).
The result of this was that universal health care, while again a good idea, was slimed by the Republicans with all their might as -- gasp! -- "socialist", and it never made it to a vote. The GOP accomplished their mission there, which was to not let it "play in Peoria". So as a result, undecided voters -- lied to by Republicans who said that universal health care would have drastically raised the average American's taxes -- turned on Clinton and the Democrats. This is how we got Newt Gingrich and the Republican Contract For (on) America.
My thinking (and possibly that of Marshall) is that a similar process could happen to Bush and the Republican congress, perhaps even to a greater degree. The most conservative wing of the Republican party -- the extra-chromosome Falwell/Robertson/Limbaugh assholes -- are licking their chops, seeing that the GOP controls essentially all three branches of government. The far right sees this as an opportunity to turn their agenda into reality: Drilling in Alaska, the end of abortion rights, corporate deregulation, deregulation in general, privatization of social security, confirming "strict constructionist" judges and justices, more infiltration of our private lives (except with guns, of course!), rolling back civil rights, rolling back environmental standards, ending the estate tax for good, making their reverse-Robinhood tax cuts permanent, passing even more tax cuts, and bombing whatever the fuck countries they feel like.
Will they have the votes for this stuff? Yes, a lot of it.
Is this a good agenda? Hell no, IMO, and that of any other sane person.
But more importantly: Is this a popular agenda?
Not in particular.
And that will be the Republicans' undoing. Their agenda, played out in all its full colors (well, just white), will be seen as repulsive in the eyes of swing voters across America, people who care about civil rights and the environment and other important issues. And 2004 could be much more dangerous for George W Bush than 94 was for Bill Clinton. Why? Because Bush is running for president in 04, while Clinton had two years to fight after the Republican takeover. If I'm Karl Rove (and thank Jebus I'm not), I'd be worried.
One problem, of course, is that this is going to take a strong effort from the Democrats to work out. They need to have a strong, positive agenda of their own. They need to take clear stances on issues (stances that are easily understandable for the stupid undecideds who decide every election these days), put themselves out there, and not just be the opposition party. Also, they need to find some real possibles for 04, and they had better soon. Not Kerrey, probably not Edwards, and definitely not Lieberman.
Anyway, the main thrust of my point is, as Jesse says: Keep hope alive!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home