A Practical case for a lasting democratic Majority

by Jose A Ibarra

There exists few instances in history that the political climate of today can be compared to.

The post election turmoil that followed the highly contentious and disputed 2000 election pales in comparison. Even the race of 2004 that had many thinking a new President was inevitable saw little uproar from either party after everything was said and done.

It seems the last time the country was so bitterly divided politically, congress was debating the civil rights and immigrations bills in the 60's.

Thankfully, neither side has been radicalized too far into fringe status. We have at least a basic overall loyalty to our establishments, to our leaders, and to historic decorum that a fear of political blackmail and warfare that may remind us of civil war era politics is nonexistent.

In America, we don't fear of recurring slayings for a political purpose outside of lone wolves. Most of all, in this country we treasure something few other countries can lay a claim to, that after over two hundred years of continued peaceful transfers of power (a successful democracy being defined in large part by peaceful transfers of power), we can still hope and believe that we will continue to be the shining exemplary democracy for the world. This idea has indeed become a foregone conclusion for most Americans.

The exhortation therefore isn't that we're close to breaching or betraying these ideas, neither is it that our system has become more combative than democratic, although in all honesty we have already reached the tipping point to where the latter is true.

The polarization of American politics has done worse than affect voters and intensify the efforts of Americans hoping to get a certain result from Washington, it has espoused a very persistent political deadlock in the legislature and has to a great degree been responsible for causing the minority party in the US to be obstructive and not productive.

The new reality since George Bush left the White House is that the majority MUST rule, otherwise the congress ends up deadlocked. It is that if the majority can't get something done on their own, the minority will not lend the hand to pass legislation critical for the good of the nation.

To that end, the democrats can't thank the Bush's administration enough for its horrid failures and for handing them such an incredibly commanding majority in 2006 on to 2008. But commanding majorities don't last very long and rarely create the kind of political environment that would allow for amicable bipartisan debates and bills being passed in congress the inevitable re-alignment of the congress happens.

There is of course an added benefit with democrats being able to maintain majorities well past 2010 and even past an Obama re-election.

Democrats are unlikely to maintain majorities large enough in the Senate to pass any big bills between the 2010 and 2012 elections, but barring a failure of the health care bill or the economy taking another dip into negative territory, democrats will retain the White House in 2012. The American people still support the President in huge numbers and unlike Bill Clinton, Obama will have had passed a health care bill by his re-election campaign; his efficacy in getting several significant bills passed during the first year of his presidency way overshadowing Bill Clinton's successes during his first term.

If the democrats maintain control over the congress, the republican party will continue to sink further into remission. A two party system cannot work effectively if one party maintains positions that remain unpopular and symbols of an era gone. We can look at Japan's LDP's disastrous loss this year for evidence.

A continued democratic presence will incite a true rediscovery of conservative principles. Fareed Zakaria once said of conservatism during the Reaggan era that the ideology worked at the time because the ideology matched the problems of the time. He also said that the new realities of the world require new solutions and that rings true for an opposition that is supposed to sharpen the sword of the majority and not try to block it entirely.

Even former Senator, Bob Dole said, "I don't want the Republicans putting up a 'no' sign and saying, 'we're not open for business."

The sad truth is that this is where we are. Perhaps a lasting democratic majority will re-teach both democrats and republicans how to govern. For democrats, the lesson will be by the revival the liberal fervor that was felt when Lyndon Johnson left the White House surrounded by the victories of the civil rights movement, and for republicans, a chance to remember a day when they governed and had the support of a productive minority democratic party under George Bush.

It's obvious that both parties have things to learn from their respective positions at this moment. Democrats need to learn not to steam roll over the opposition and republicans need to quit being unrelentingly obstructive.

Perhaps giving democrats a few more years time will be precisely what American politics needs for their to be two competing and both workable solutions to a single problem, rather than one proposed solution and the opposition simply rallying against it.