1. Happily, I was wrong to be so pessimistic. The prudent wing of the ruling-class party, otherwise known as the Democrats, prevailed quite decisively and in many unexpected places. The Democrats now control the House of Representatives by a comfortable margin, and may yet control the Senate, depending on the final outcome of the election in Virginia, which is all the more remarkable given that it is a conservative state with an only partially functional democracy. Perhaps most notable is that Missouri, which has been a bellwether state for some time, elected a Democrat to the Senate. As Missouri goes, so goes the nation, or at least rather often.
2. It is still unclear whether the Democrats stand for anything, or whether they are simply the beneficiaries of widespread distaste for Bush, his incompetence, and his war of aggression against Iraq. (Why it took so long for this distaste to become widespread--where were these folks in 2004? what in the world were they thinking then?--is, alas, one of the mysteries of our time, and indicative of the feeble and/or unpredictable cognitive and emotional condition of the electorate.) The Democrats in the House are almost certain to begin investigating abuses of executive power, but will they pursue impeachment? Will they expose the lies leading up to the war of aggression against Iraq? (Perhaps throwing the Democrats the bloody meat of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's "resignation" [sic] today was meant to forestall some of this.) In the Senate, even without a majority, the Democrats are now in a position--or would be if they have even a little courage--to filibuster some of the disgraceful judicial nominees Bush has put forward, and to do so without risk of the Republicans changing the Senate rules, since they are very unlikely to be able to get the needed 60 votes now, even if the Democrats fail to pick up Virginia. This means no more Janice Rogers Browns, and it should also mean no more hard right nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. But, again, this supposes that the Democrats will actually stick together as a party, and won't spend time appeasing the closet Republicans in their midst (like Joseph Lieberman, the war-monger and whore of the insurance industry, who was re-elected in Connecticut, after losing in the Democratic primary).
3. Many of the newly elected Democrats are fairly conservative, usually on the so-called "social" issues like abortion and gun rights. But these issues pale in importance by comparison, e.g., to future wars of aggression, and the question is whether the new-found Democratic majorities will mean an end to the Bush juggernaut that endangers the world. Let us remember that significant numbers of Democrats supported the war of aggression against Iraq; will Democrats really do better if a war against Iran is fomented? I am not at all confident, especially not if Israel is used, as we have speculated before, as the instigator.
4. Will the new Democratic majorities, assuming they control both houses--but dependent as they are on so many conservative Democrats--be able to tackle the most immediate threat to democracy and liberty in the United States, the Military Dictatorship Act of 2006? Or will the Democrats continue playing "tough guys" and acquiescing in the rhetoric of the fake "war on terror"? My guess is they won't have the courage to act on either front; some colleagues in the Law School here at Chicago, who follow the political process more closely, expressed the view that the first legislative agenda item for the Democrats would be raising the minimum wage. It ought to be raised, but that is not the aggressive leadership that is needed from a genuine "opposition" party at this time in the United States.
5. A change in which wing of the ruling-class party controls the legislative branch in the U.S. is welcome, to be sure, given the deranged criminality of so many of the leaders of the other wing, but will this change presage a change in the public culture and discourse? In the absence of that kind of shift, we may only be spared some of the short-term horrors of which Bush and his bestiary of madmen are capable. The U.S. has moved further and further to the right on the central issues of economic and foreign policy since Reagan's takeover in 1981; unless we start moving in the other direction, these changes in party control will not matter in hindsight.
Recent Comments