Resisting temptation

THE FORTUNES OF PRES. George W. Bush and the Republican Party have continued to dim since the 2004 election. The ongoing struggles in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina disaster, Abramhoff scandals, and Dubai Port controversy have piled on top of one another to give the Democrats their best chance in over 10 years to take back Congress. It may happen, yet the Dems will need a bit more than Republican misfortune to win a majority and then keep it in subsequent elections.

During the years of Democratic dominance, the Republicans were able to win an election or two when the majority party stumbled. In 1946, the Republicans gained Congress when Pres. Harry Truman seemed uncertain as how to handle the Soviets. In 1948, when the President regained his footing with the Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan, and Berlin Airlift, he was reelected and the Democrats recaptured the House and Senate. In 1952, with the war in Korea apparently stalemated, the Republicans, led by Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, took the presidency and the Congress. Within two years, the Democrats had Congress back and, in 1960, captured the presidency. In 1968, with the Democrats again presiding over another unresolved war--this time in Vietnam--Richard Nixon won the presidency for the Republicans, but not the Congress. In 1976, the Democratic Party was back in control of these branches of government.

During this era, the Democratic Party set the agenda and, thus, maintained its majority. The Eisenhower and Nixon interludes brought little departure from that agenda. In fact. under Nixon, environmental and consumer regulations grew faster than they did under the Democrats. It was not until Ronald Reagan's Administration that the Republicans developed their own distinct agenda. They then proceeded to win five out of seven presidential elections and gained a congressional majority in 1994.

Will a potential Democratic victory in 2006 simply be an interlude in a Republican era? Or will such a victory herald a new Democratic era? Much will depend on what the Democrats have to offer. If a new Democratic Congress simply supplies more Bush bashing, a series of flamboyant investigations, and calls for impeachment, their time in power will be short-lived.

What Democratic agenda would help to reestablish its lost majority? Another round of the New Deal/Great Society reforms (single-payer health insurance, massive public works, or education initiatives) would encounter harsh fiscal realities. The budget already is way out of balance, and the future demands for homeland security and baby-boomer entitlements allow little room for new programs. When the Dubai Port controversy erupted, the Dems sounded as if they wanted to close every leak in our security system, a demand that will have no end for increased funds. Simply raising taxes on the rich will not come near to closing the gap, and the Democrats are unlikely to increase taxes on the middle class.

There is a tempting agenda, but it is a demagogic one--nationalism mixed with a touch of xenophobia: Close up the borders; reduce immigration: eliminate outsourcing; restrict foreign takeovers: and stop regional free trade agreements. There also are important national security implications to consider. It could involve setting a fixed deadline for withdrawal in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan; eschewing future military interventions into rogue states; letting the Europeans worry about Iran; letting China, Japan, and South Korea worry about North Korea; letting the Israelis worry about Hamas; toning down the war against Islamic fascism; and, wherever possible, reducing the overseas American military and political profile.

American war-wariness over Iraq, suspicion of the Arab world, disgust with continual braying of anti-Americanism in Europe, and concerns about globalization may make this temptation hard to resist. The center wing of the Democratic Party, housed in the Democratic Leadership Council, has warned against such policies as destructive to economic growth and U.S. security. In general, Pres. Bill Clinton heeded their advice. He championed free trade, signed a reduction in the capital gains tax, encouraged foreign investment, and made no serious effort to reduce immigration.

Can that kind of candidate (without the scandals) be nominated again? The political climate in 2006 is quite different than it was in 1992. In that year, the Republicans rejected Pat Buchanan's call for a rush to the barricades to fight the culture wars. The policy differences between George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were not starkly dramatic, and today the two are friends and fellow fundraisers. It is unlikely that George W. Bush and his opponents, Al Gore and John Kerry, ever will be buddies. The core of both parties has strengthened and hardened, making campaigns nasty and divisive. The role of the religious right in the Republican Party is an old story, but the rise of the militant left in the Democratic Party is a relatively new one. This partially is a consequence of the blogisphere and the campaign reform law. A militant left organization such as MoveOn.org can raise a great deal of money for an appropriate left wing candidate, and billionaires like George Soros can use the 527 tax exempt loophole to fund such organizations.