A Republican’s view of Election 2006
Election analysis and commentary
By Demaris Miller
In the sixth year of a two-term presidency, the party not holding the White House almost always gains seats, and the Democrats succeeded. Tuesday was a great Democrat victory. When the new Congress is sworn in, Democrats will control the House and (I believe) the Senate. Millions of inches of copy will be written analyzing all the reasons Republicans in general and George Allen in particular lost, but right now, a more important question is: What does Democrat control of the House and Senate mean for our country?
The American people wanted change, and change is what they will get. In many cases, they have elected people who promised change without saying much about just what they would do. In the case of Virginia, they have elected a man whose positions they know little about. But that is another story for another time.
First, the big change in the House will begin with selection of a Speaker. Democrats are expected to select San Francisco liberal Rep.Nancy Pelosi. Although she is very liberal and has a rather nasty mean streak, Pelosi is too smart to govern that way right now. She knows that many of the new Democrat members of the House are far more moderate than she is.
Pelosi also knows that America wants to see positive action – legislation that addresses their concerns. She must work with more moderate parts of her party to produce results. She will work with the Democrat-controlled Senate to send President Bush immigration legislation that he will sign. Sometimes, she will work with the Senate to send President Bush legislation that she knows he will veto, such as an end to the ban on Federal funding of research that requires destruction of human embryos.
In some of the polls, the four top concerns expressed by the American public are corruption, terrorism, the economy, and Iraq. Pelosi knows that Democrats must have the appearance of ferreting out corruption and doing so while maintaining clean hands. Most of the Republicans who are vulnerable on the issue of corruption are gone, but Pelosi will find a way to make her mark, perhaps even going after Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana, who was reelected Tuesday. Unless it degenerates into endless hearings, increased discipline will not be a bad thing.
On terrorism, Pelosi faces more challenges. She must find a way to satisfy liberal Democrats who hate the Patriot Act, without alienating more moderate Democrats who want a stronger program protecting Americans. Although this will require quite a bit of negotiation and compromise, and perhaps some arm twisting, Pelosi knows that Democrats will not be able to build on yesterday’s victories unless they appear to be strong on homeland security.
On the economy, despite the fact that the economy is strong, unemployment is low, and incomes are rising, we can expect to see quick action to raise the minimum wage. Already, 29 states have a minimum wage that is higher than the federal level. Raising the minimum wage isn’t necessary, and benefits very few people, and potentially reduces job opportunities for first-time workers, but this is a bedrock Democrat issue.
Democrats have not promised a balanced budget, and they generally oppose a balanced budget amendment, but they have promised more budget discipline with lower deficits. Given their history, higher taxes seem likely and spending reductions seem unlikely. In fact, the anticipated chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, has virtually promised tax increases. Wall Street will be watching closely for anti-growth policies.
Other disturbing possibilities include meddling with the oil and drug industries. Democrats have threatened all sorts of counterproductive mischief with both. If they force drug companies to negotiate prices for Medicare patients, the cost of drugs will go up for everyone else and some drug companies will reduce their investment in research for new drugs. A longer-term side effect will be that drug companies will begin to move away from drugs that are used primarily by individuals over 65 because of the additional burden mandatory price negotiations (otherwise known as price controls) create.
Pelosi may try to slap a windfall-profits tax on oil companies or she may try to place requirements on them to invest a given portion on alternative energy (which oil companies already do). Either action would tend to increase the price of gas and reduce the incentive for exploration, hurting our chances of achieving energy independence. For these reasons, she is likely to find opposition among both Republicans and moderate Democrats sufficient to stall her efforts.
Iraq will be an even greater challenge for Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats. They have talked a lot about a change in direction, but they have no consistent message about which way they would go or what they would do. Their only real club to use against the President is withholding funding, but they do not want to be seen cutting off funding for American troops. They need to come to some kind of solution because if they don’t, the party controlling both houses of Congress will be seen as part of the problem.
Beyond these issues, Nancy Pelosi has promised that there will be no impeachment proceedings, but the likely chairman of the House Judiciary committee, Rep.John Conyers of Detroit, has promised that there will be. The new speaker will have to resolve this. She probably knows that the American people are in no mood for wall-to-wall hearings and dissonance.
Beyond the House, the most important effect this election will have is on the confirmation of judges in the Senate. Already, there are more than 60 judicial nominees that have been held up by the Democrats in the Senate. Now, there will be only Democrats to blame if judges are not confirmed. On the other hand, President Bush is determined to nominate well-qualified, strict constructionist judges – just the kind Democrats hate.
George W. Bush had a remarkable record of working with a legislature dominated by Democrats in Texas. He is willing to work with the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate as well. Of course, partisanship has been much worse in Washington than it was in Texas. It remains to be seen whether the new Democrat majorities, without a veto-proof margin, will be able to break the gridlock. If they want their success to last more than two years, the Democrats must find a reasonable way to compromise. In the meantime, Republicans have an opportunity to examine their losses, return to their roots, and rebuild.
Demaris Miller is vice-chair of the Rappahannock County Republican Committee.
-- DemarisComments
Comment from robert legge
Time: November 9, 2006, 10:52 am
I appreciate Dr. Miller taking the time to post her views on the soon-to-be new Congress. The Democrats have the advantage of being in control now. They also have the burden of being in control. If they don’t succeed, their majority is not likely to last long and their odds of electing a president in ‘08 are lessened.
I am disappointed that Miller posted such rhetoric as Nancy Pelosi having “a rather nasty mean streak”. When I read such stuff like that, it immediately colors whatever else she writes the rest of the way.
Anyway I also look forward to Ben’s piece and hope others add further comments.
–Robert Legge
Comment from Jim Warwick
Time: November 9, 2006, 5:11 pm
This election was much more than the “6 year itch”. The extent of the margin of victory was in great excess of this because the electorate thought that the incompetence and irresponsibilty of the George W. Bush Administration, especially as involved in the war In Iraq, is totally unacceptable. I did not read farther, no point after this “problem”.
Jim Warwick
Comment from nolp
Time: November 10, 2006, 7:59 am
While I always read the comments of Mrs. Miller, I almost never respond and hardly ever agree. The difficulty is in interpretation and exploration of ideas. Once Mrs. Miller’s opinion beachhead has been established, contrary facts are ignored and belittled.
Her dissertation reads like the President’s news conference … we have had an election in which the people spoke rather forcefully … but they have learned nothing nor have forgotten nothing.
Bolton’s nomination is to be forwarded to a lame duck Senate; the egregious parts of the wire tapping bill are to be pushed through.
It may come as news, but for six years the views of the half the Nation have been ignored and demeaned. Hastert would not bring a bill forward unless it was supported by a majority of the majority … some democracy! Minority members of committees were continually locked out by closed door hearings. Amendments to bills on the floor were not allowed.
The tone of Mrs. Miller’s piece lament’s this loss. I do not. It was not healthy. I lookforward to a fresh wind in our national assembly. A page might have been taken from Senator Allen’s gracious concession speach … alas, the concept was too foreign.
–Nol Putnam
Comment from hdski67
Time: November 18, 2006, 4:15 pm
This comment is (in response to that of) Mr. Warrick.
As a veteran of the armed forces, I find it sad that you fall into the trap that the “War in Iraq” is “totally unacceptable”. Maybe we should have done nothing so we all can pray to “Allah” and no longer say what we would like. I am glad I did not have to give my life for your freedom. Do you understand that these people actually hate you for no particular reason? The 60’s and the love-ins are over. Peace is won now with AR-15 in one hand and a Bible in the other.
–Thomas Shernisky
Write a comment