Unilateralism is the new pink!

jjohn on 2002-11-06T16:44:04

Of Bush's role, [Trent Lott] said on NBC's Today show: "I think it was a referendum on his leadership and he really showed that he was committed that he was willing to put his prestige on the line."

Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., glumly acknowledged, "This was one tough night," and said the war on terrorism and the prospect of war with Iraq drowned out what the Democrats were trying to say about the shaky economy.

"The president made that his drumbeat," Daschle said. "It resonated."

--Boston.com:Republicans win control of Congress, leaving Democrats to grumble about Bush

In this election, many liberal spectators expected the voters say to Washington, "It's the economy, stupid!" and deliver the House and/or Senate into the hands of the Democrats. Instead, the voters said, with a loud, clear voice: "It's the war, stupid!"

That the Democratic leadership is intellectually and morally bankrupt is apparent to most. Still the voice of loyal opposition in the national debate is greatly comprised now that the G.O.P has hegemony in the Executive and Legislative branches. There is no longer any doubt: America is going to War.

The outrage of September 11 and ennui of a stagnant economy have been channelled into the march towards war -- a war that will oust one dictator at the cost of creating dozens or hundreds of new Anti-American terrorists. This dubious victory will cost the US dearly in European and Asian goodwill. Perhaps flushed by the "success" of the Iraq campaign (itself born on the heels of the "success" in Afghanistan), the US will turn its undeniably awesome military might towards North Korea and even Iran.

All this will cost the US taxpayer dearly, despite Bush's promises to cut taxes. After all, wars costs money. With the economy barely breathing, tax revenue will be lower than recent years making the cost of these wars very dear. The war chest will need to be refilled from other government programs, like those not favored by the Republicans. Without mending the economy, the US could easily go the way of the former U.S.S.R., spending its way out of existence.

There is another omnious message that this mid-term election carries. Bush assumed office under the most dubious of circumstances and yet he has cajoled and patronized the opposition into doing his bidding as if he were swept into power on the crest of a massive voter landslide. If Bush had no mandate from the people before this mid-term election, he's got it now. Expect the very thin and cynical veneer of bipartisanship of Bush's first two years to go the way of the Dodo. That warning goes double for the UN.

The US isn't the only country whose conservative element is in bloom. Both Turkey and Pakistan elected Islamic parties into power (although Turkey's AK party is not so fundamentalist as the six Pakistani groups). In France, Germany and the Netherlands, isolationist groups are making strong showings in elections. When everyone believes they are divinely right, there is no room for comprimise.

The 2004 election is now Bush's game to lose. The Democrats, baring Jesus Christ, Moses or Muhammad registering with the party, have no credible candidate to run against Bush. In the next two years, we will witness every program and policy change that Bush and the Republicans have ever wanted. Some of these changes probably will be for the better. Most will not. In 2012 during the last years of Sino-American war, what historians remain will identify now as the point when it all went to hell in a handbasket.

Two party systems are so 1998.


OBL will pale by comparison

hfb on 2002-11-06T17:19:16

to the millions of rioting AARP folks who will have no health care in the next decade or so. Medicaid will have a $0 prescription drug benefit next year reduced from $300 this year with the average prescription costing about $15 per pill. So unless the GOP starts selling Soylent Blue made out of all these burdens to society I'd make a point to get the hell out of dodge before the anarchy begins.

I Disagree!

pudge on 2002-11-07T15:27:13

In this election, many liberal spectators expected the voters say to Washington, "It's the economy, stupid!" and deliver the House and/or Senate into the hands of the Democrats. Instead, the voters said, with a loud, clear voice: "It's the war, stupid!"

The problem is not that the people don't care about the economy, the problem (for the Democrats) is that all the polls show that a significant majority of voters believe the economy is OK. You assume the economy was bad and the people don't care. The stats just don't bear that out. This is why the Democrat leadership is looking bad: in the middle of a bad economy, they couldn't make people think the economy was bad.

here is no longer any doubt: America is going to War.

Nah. War is unlikely. There will be a new UN resolution signed, probably tomorrow, and Iraq will be given seven days to agree to it. The only way we will go to war is Iraq does not agree to it -- which would in itself be considered an act of war by Iraq -- which seems altogether unlikely, since the best way for Iraq to stay in power is for them to allow the UN to have its way.

Bush assumed office under the most dubious of circumstances and yet he has cajoled and patronized the opposition into doing his bidding as if he were swept into power on the crest of a massive voter landslide.

Regardless of the circumstances in which he was elected into office, I have never considered relative margin of victory to be relevant. He was elected, he was the President, he gets to act like the President. And nothing has changed.

Sure, you get your political capital in various ways: sometimes by high election margins, sometimes by other events (such as 9/11), but how ytou get that political capital doesn't make what you do with that political capital right or wrong. He has no obligation to act as he thinks the people want him to act, except insofar as he promised during his campaign. I couldn't care less if the majority of Americans approve of this policy or that one. He is the President, legally elected, and gets to act like the President, and put work on the policies he thinks are best. This is the nature of a representative democracy.

In short: what "mandate" a politician have is (IMO, rightfully) irrelevant. How much political capital he has, no matter where it comes from, is all that matters.

In the next two years, we will witness every program and policy change that Bush and the Republicans have ever wanted. Some of these changes probably will be for the better. Most will not.

Your opinion is, of course, only your opinion. I think of it exactly opposite: some will not be for the better, but most will be. Social Security will likely be fixed for the better (hfb has an excellent point about the AARP, that if they screw up Social Security and piss off the AARP that they will lose in 2004: this is exactly why they will not screw up Social Security).

The biggest challenge, though, is health care. They have a chance to finally do what they want with it, and I am hopeful that they will do well by it. But it is a lot harder to fix than Social Security. I am hoping they do more things like the recent legislation to limit exclusive rights to drugs by pharmaceutical companies, more of a top-down approach. It sucks to pay for everyone's drugs when we could be working to make those drugs more affordable instead.

And remember, there are a lot of mavericks in the Senate, and no party majority large enough to stop a filibuster. The Republicans simply cannot do whatever they wish, because they need to appease their own moderates and mavericks (like Chafee and McCain), and they need to avoid the filibuster.