Charles M. Madigan, a professor at Roosevelt University, makes the following observation in the Chicago Tribune, while discussing the possibility of a political realignment.
A lot of people are disturbed by the possibility of realignment, largely because realignments change the direction of politics and government so completely that what comes after one bears little resemblance to what happened before.
Prof. Madigan isn’t sure if a realignment will occur, although he says that all the pieces are in place. But his point about realignments changing ‘the direction of politics so completely that what comes after one bears little resemblance to what happened before’ is one that I’ve been making to my liberal friends and on this page for about a year now. Politics is the art of the possible. As bad as the Bush years were, imagine if the Democrats had not retained the ability to filibuster. Imagine the kind of change the Bushies could have imposed on the country in that circumstance? It’s truly frightening to contemplate. And that is why the Republicans are getting really frightened as they look at the polls in the both the presidential and senate elections.
Years in the minority, where the Democrats have not been particularly effective, have led most of my progressive friends to a point of toxic cynicism. Most of them don’t think the Democrats would do the right thing even given the chance to do so unopposed. With experience as a teacher, it’s hard to argue with them. But there is another kind of experience that comes with a familiarity with a longer arc of history.
We’re on the cusp of an historic realignment of power. To put this in perspective, all historians see the 1980 election as a realignment and a clear marker of a change in attitudes about the government. And that’s true. But Ronald Reagan never controlled the House and didn’t control the Senate for his whole term. The real realignment didn’t reach fruition until the 2002 election, which gave Bush control of Congress. But, even in the 2003-2007 period, Bush had to confront the filibuster. [Bush controlled Congress for the first half of 2001, until Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont defected from the GOP caucus]. Obama, on the other hand, is poised to enter office with at least 250 Democratic members of the House and 58 members of the Senate. At this point, those numbers would be a slight disappointment. The last time a party enjoyed that level of power was in the 89th Congress (1965-1966).
Let’s take a look at that Congress’ legislative accomplishments:
* 1965-04-11 — Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Pub.L. 89-10, 79 Stat. 77
* 1965-07-30 — Social Security Act of 1965 including Medicaid and Medicare, Pub.L. 89-97, 79 Stat. 286
* 1965-08-06 — Voting Rights Act, Pub.L. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437
* 1965-10-03 — Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, (Hart-Celler Act, INS Act) Pub.L. 89-236
* 1965-10-20 — Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, Pub.L. 89-272, 79 Stat. 992, including Solid Waste Disposal Act
* 1965-11-08 — Higher Education Act, Pub.L. 89-329, 79 Stat. 1219
* 1966-04-13 — Uniform Time Act, Pub.L. 89-387, 80 Stat. 107
* 1966-09-06 — Freedom of Information Act, Pub.L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 383
* 1966-09-09 — National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Pub.L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
* 1966-10-15 — National Historic Preservation Act, Pub.L. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915
* 1966-10-15 — Department of Transportation Act, Pub.L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931
* 1966-11-02 — Cuban Adjustment Act, Pub.L. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161
The sheer force of this progressive legislation, in combination with the escalating war in Vietnam, led to an electoral backlash in 1966 and again in 1968 and 1972. And I expect the next Congress, which is perhaps too cognizant of that backlash, to exercise more caution than the 89th Congress displayed. But, the point stands. On virtually every piece of legislation that Democrats have been working on in think-tanks over the last fourteen years, the assumption has been that a key component in crafting bills is to overcome the filibuster or win over moderate Republicans. This is actually a problem, because Democrats are not prepared to throw good bills into the queue that take advantage of our super or near super-majorities. But that will iron itself out. The Democrats, just like the media, just like my liberal friends, cannot yet imagine the kind of power they are about to inherit.
And it will change things in ways we can’t even anticipate.
This article by Rick Perlstein is pertinent here:
A Liberal Shock Doctrine
with that, I concur, with one exception.
The lesson does not go all one way.
Yes, history teaches us that progressive windows are brief. It also teaches us that the reason they are brief might be connected to overreach and poor public relations management. Obama should just as concerned with learning how not to overshoot, as the lesson that he should aggressively press his advantage.
Is there an example of a president who went slowly but still accomplished significant legislation? That’s my fear. By extending the hand, moving slowly, reaching for bipartisan compromise, we may waste the best opportunity we’ve had in my voting years to make real change. But I’d like to think it can work as you describe. I’m just not convinced, yet.
poor public relations management
That was certainly a main factor behind the Clinton administration health care plan fiasco.
So far, Obama shows little signs of overreaching. Still, I was pleased by his remark to Joe the Plumber that we should “spread the wealth”. It’s interesting that McCain-Palin thought they could use that to hurt Obama, but it doesn’t seem to be working. Hopefully, if he wins the election, he will send out further trial balloons like that and be sufficiently encouraged by the response to be more ambitious than he shows signs of being right now.
a TPM link.
catch this must see clip of Zbig Brzezinski on the Morning Joe show – Zbig left Joe running to find a closet in which to hide.
I can’t see Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Rahm Emanuel spearheading this.
More likely, they’d skewer such reforms. Agreed.
I’ve never been entirely sure about what you mean when you talk about realignment. Just what kind of bills are enacted? Or something more basic, like a major change is US culture’s political perspective and what its “conventional wisdom” maintains?
I think it’s the latter where lefties are rightly apprehensive about how the new Dem majority will use its power. In the past, even when they’ve passed good laws, they’ve largely failed to establish changes in the majority political/economic outlook. They’ve failed to connect the laws with guiding principles. To me, Bill Clinton is the poster child for that underperformance.
I’m stll hoping all this yak about “bipartisanship” is just political boilerplate, but it’s becoming increasingly worrisome. When you start out with compromise as your first commandment you’re gonna get rolled by the bad guys. And they are bad guys, not just misguided but honorable patriots.
We shouldn’t blame this all, or even mostly, on the Dems, though. We who call ourselves lefties and liberals have ourselves to blame. We just talk among ourselves without attempting to produce ideas and criticism of current orthodoxy. How can real change come about when there’s nothing out there to aim at? We’ve probably managed to win some small degree of recognition for raising money and help for candidates, but we’ve done next to nothing to develop and push ideas for them to work for. We’ve done next to nothing to give them backup when they do stray from the current militarist/Reaganist sentimentatlity. Gingrich’s tsunami worked because it announced principles that could be summarized on a couple sheets of paper. The fruits of that success are still with us today.
Unless we come up with our own powerful and coherent propositions about society, government, and economics, and unless we shift our newfound political skills to promoting them, the best we can expect from the new power structure is a few good laws that will be quickly neutralized by an opposition that does know what it wants, and how to get it. We need to devote ourselves now to building the structure for permanent and powerful leftist muscle in this country. Getting a bunch of more Ds after incumbents’ names is only a small first step toward what change really has to mean if it is to mean anything at all.
It’s both.
For living memory, it’s been a ‘liability’ to be a liberal. Now it will be a ‘liability’ the be a conservative (at least, of the Rove/DeLay/Santorum stripe).
But the magnitude of progressive legislation that can fly through the congress without a filibuster is only limited by the days on the congressional calendar.
Stem-cell research funding.
Unionization.
Repealing the Hyde Amendment.
Some form of universal health care.
You can see a list (.pdf) of filibustered bills at the Campaign for American Progress. And these were bills crafted as compromise bills. Some include:
Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007
Orderly & Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act of 2007
DREAM Act- Residency for Immigrant Children
Restoration of Habeas Corpus to U.S. Detainees
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007
Employee Free Choice Act
Part D – Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act
CLEAN Energy Act of 2007
Sense of Senate on Alberto Gonzales
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act
Ethics and Lobbying Disclosure Act
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act
The American Housing Rescue & Foreclosure Prevention Act
All of these bills can be resubmitted, or improved and resubmitted, in a new Congress. That’s serious change.
All of these bills can be resubmitted, or improved and resubmitted, in a new Congress. That’s serious change.
Eh. Don’t forget that while the Democrats may have the majority as far as parties go, conservatives will continue to have a majority as far as ideology goes. The conservative Dems will know that they can count on the remaining Republicans to vote NO on anything the conservative Dems think is too much. So don’t expect too much improvement.
That said, the inter-party “compromise bills” can form the basis for compromises within the Democratic party among the various coalitions. We may get some good things, but they won’t be much bolder than what the 2006-2008 Congress was trying to get done – they just won’t be filibustered, or passed under threat of veto from the administration so that they can only pass stuff that is so popular they need 2/3 in both houses to get it done.
None of those bills will be watered down and all of them can be improved. I’ve written about how the Democratic Party is about to get more moderate even as Congress lurches to the left. So, yeah, the real fights in the next congress will be between Democrats.
The problem is that national democratic leaders will not be the ones realigned.
And Obama has never done anything but move slow, has he?