Non-Partisan Election Day Musings

Over the past week, I've had conversations with several friends about today's Congressional and Senatorial elections. Those talks have caused me to reflect on some trends I've noticed, in retrospect, and what some ramifications of various outcomes of these elections may be.

I don't intend this to be a partisan post. If I'm successful, you won't actually even know for which party's candidates I voted this afternoon.

Several things strike me about the prospect of the US House having a majority of Democrats in the Congress which is seated in January, 2007. First, while it took some 40 years for the prior Democratic majority to be whittled down, and, finally, overthrown, in 1994, the Republican-led Congress will have run its course in only 12 years. Both basically became encrusted with too much corruption for even the local voters to tolerate, so that, when added up across 435 districts, the party majorities in Congress changed.

Is it possible that the Republicans needed only 12 years to become as corrupt, on a broad scale, as the Democrats did in 40, because of modern communications and information technology? I believe it is. As my business partner stated it, corruption and bribery have become "more efficient" in the digital age.

If the Democrats win the majority in the House tonight/tomorrow/next month (after unending challenges, recounts, lawsuits, etc.), it may have profoundly unintended consequences for both parties.

For the Democrats, I believe it may well shine a spotlight on them in their "not yet ready for prime time" condition. As several news stories have reported, as many as 40 of the prospective new Democratic Representatives will look a lot like moderate Republicans, based upon their positions on a handful of salient issues- Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, etc. These Representatives, who could almost be called "Reagan Democratic Representatives," to use the old term for the crossover voters who elected that President twice in the 1980s, could well be significantly out of step with their vastly more liberal leadership. And that might lead to some unexpected alliances between the newly-elected, moderate Democrats, and current moderate Republicans, to either block extremely liberal legislation originating in the House, and/or even force more moderate conference versions before bills leave the House.

At the same time, it may be surprising to most Americans to see the much-feared, prospective Democratic House Committee leadership in action- Rangel, Obey, Waxman, Pelosi, Dingell, et. al. The Republicans have railed about the possibilities of these people running House committees for over a decade. Their actual behaviors may result in Americans having two years to rethink leaving the House in Democratic hands, come the 2008 elections.

Meanwhile, being out of leadership may be good for the Republicans. Since Gingrich was forced from office in 1999, the party has lost the ideological high ground that Gingrich led them to with his "Contract with America" in 1994. Now, with the hack-like, rotund Dennis Hastert at the helm, the House Republicans, amidst various sex and bribery scandals, look disturbingly like Jim Wright's Democrats of 1993.

Consider this example. It now appears, from various publicly reported accounts, that Hastert's lieutenants were advised of Mark Foley's sexual activities vis a vis former House pages. Apparently, fellow Illinois Congressman John Shimkus, a Hastert handler, simply swept the issue under the rug, and never mentioned it to Hastert. If this, the kindest interpretation of what probably happened, is true, it shows just how far out of touch with American society the Republican House leadership has become.

Hastert should have been on a televised press conference within hours of the receipt of such information, explaining what he knew, his options, and how he proposed to act in order to investigate the accused, and modify procedures to minimize the prospects of a recurrence. Instead, the issue has come to overwhelm the House Republicans at a time when they are already in danger of losing their majority to the Democrats.

It could well be the right time for a Republican break from leadership, in order to reshuffle its leadership, rethink its positions, and regain ideological supremacy from what already seems to be a largely ideological bankrupt Democratic House leadership.

Thus, a Democratic takeover of the House might be a needed tonic that the Republicans don't want. A little medicine now might result in their return to power, on better foundations, in 2008.

The best news about all of this is that, regardless of who wins the House, or Senate, for that matter, there doesn't have to be that much change in Federal government direction. Since either, or both, Democratic majorities would be slim, President Bush would easily wield a veto pen that could not be overridden. In fact, as I mentioned above, it's possible that some of the new House Democrats could actually dampen their own leadership's legislation before it leaves that chamber for the Senate.

Finally, letting the Democrats run the Senate and House in the two years prior to a Presidential election in which there will be no incumbent, could turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the country. If the Democrats demonstrate that, once returned to power, they can govern positively, productively and effectively, then the change may indeed be beneficial. And the Democrats may indeed have learned to curb their ultra-liberal tendencies, perhaps by changing their leadership. If, however, all the Democrats can do in those two years is to block President Bush's judicial nominations, attempt to raise taxes, withdraw from Iraq via funding cuts, and otherwise roll back 12 years of Republican work, then Americans will see that the party is not yet ready to govern the Legislative houses. Such an outcome might well provide a tailwind for the Republican Presidential candidate in 2008, with fresh evidence of the Democratic party's Congressional ineptitude.

Ironically, the worst thing for the country may be for the Republicans to dodge a bullet in both Houses this election, and carry on as usual. I think that would be a tragedy for everyone, no matter what their political leaning.