A democratic resurgence?

REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS LOOKING AT the opinion polls in the spring of 2006 had to shudder--Pres. Bush's approval ratings in the low 30s and the Democrats leading by double digits in the congressional matchups. If these numbers continue into November, the Democrats should be able to pick up the 15 seats in the House of Representatives necessary to capture a majority. Gaining control of the Senate could prove more difficult. They would have to hold all their seats, defeat at least live incumbent Republicans, and win the open seat in Tennessee. Yet, given the weakened condition of Pres. Bush and the Republican Party, nothing is out of the question.

Misfortune and missteps have plagued the President and the congressional Republicans since their election victory in 2004. The war in Iraq has proven to be very slow going while losing public support; Katrina, the most devastating hurricane in 70 years, caught officials at every level of government unprepared and made the Bush Administration look like the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight: gas prices reached more than throe dollars a gallon as Republican remedies were indecisive and incoherent: the proposed Dubai Port sale was an exploding cigar; and senior White House staffer I. "Scooter" Libby was indicted for perjury. Moreover, in the middle of all this, Vice Pres. Dick Cheney accidentally shot his hunting partner, an event Bush Administration.

As the President's numbers in the polls plummeted, Republicans in Congress balked at his lead on important initiatives. Social Security reform found few willing to take up the fight while proposed tax reform and simplification disappeared into some congressional netherworld. It comes as no surprise that the polls show Democratic voters highly motivated and their Republican counterparts dispirited, with only a minority of Republicans approving of the President's performance. Much of Pres. Bush and the congressional Republicans' low ratings could be explained by the dissatisfactions of conservatives. The only noteworthy victories they can claim from Bush's second term and this Congress are the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Indeed, if Bush and the Republicans have test their enthusiasm and vision for the conservative agenda, why should conservatives bother to support them?

If all this was not enough, there will be a historical pattern working against the Republicans in November. In the sixth year of an administration, the presidential party in power often suffers significant losses in the congressional races. It happened to the Eisenhower Administration in 1958: Kennedy-Johnson in 1966; Nixon-Ford in 1974; and the Reagan Administration in 1986. Bill Clinton escaped the jinx in 1998, but his party already had endured such a disaster in 1994. A general desire for change was involved in each of these elections. Thus, the Democrats have great hopes come November.

Nonetheless, history is not on automatic pilot, and every voting cycle has its own dynamic. Is there any chance the Republicans can avoid being swept away in November? The party in power does have a few things going for it. For instance, there is the advantage of incumbency in districts targeted by Democrats, as well as little public enthusiasm for congressional Democrats, whose approval ratings are about as low as that of Republicans'.

Since 2000, the face of Democratic Party leaders has proven to be an inviting target and an effective incentive for enhancing Republican turnout. Karl Rove and the Republican National Committee turned the likes of John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Hillary Clinton into perfect foils. Rove now hopes that the fear of a Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could do the same in 2006. Pelosi's threat of using a Democratic majority to launch a series of investigations into past Administration policies is an indication that Bush hatred is more important to the Democrats than anything else. Dwelling on rear-view mirror mistakes does not inspire voters, as the Republicans learned during the Clinton impeachment debacle.

What then will the Democrats offer beyond Bush loathing and a pastiche of small ideas like raising the minimum wage by a dollar or so and rolling back tax cuts for the rich? Michael Tomasky, writing in American Prospect, a liberal Democratic organ, wants his party to develop the notion of the common good. "... Diversity and rights cannot be the only goods that Democrats demand citizens accept. For liberalism to succeed, they have to exist alongside an idea of a common good. When they don't, things are out of balance, corrupted."

However, Tomasky is vague about what the common good would involve. Does it mean asking Americans to get serious about the threat of Islamic fascism and to pursue our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan to a successful conclusion, or requesting that baby boomers accept some modifications in their Social Security and Medicare benefits, or seeing that there are serious reductions in government programs by squeezing the pork out of the budget? Does it involve ending large subsidizes to rich farmers and agribusinesses? I have my doubts. Invariably, liberals" talk about the common good is simply the language of big government.