November 9, 2006--BULLETIN: The Republicans Won!

I’m sorry to be among the first to have to tell you that, in spite of the numbers that indicate that the Democrats won control of both the House and Senate, on Tuesday the Republicans in fact won.

And for my money that’s a good thing!

True the Dems picked up a bushel of seats in the House; and, if you consider Joe Lieberman a Democrat, the six they needed in the Senate. True, come January when Democrats with seniority become the chairs of all congressional committees and with their newly acquired subpoena power begin a series of essential old-style investigative hearings about everything from how we got into the war in Iraq and what really went on between Dick Cheney and the oil executives as he took the lead to formulate a “new energy policy,” for these reasons it will look like the Democrats are in charge.

But what you really need to do for a moment is divert your thinking about numbers and put aside your glee that Rummy has been so quickly booted out and put aside for a minute your happiness that the Bush Regency is about to begin as some of the father’s consigliores are about to ride in to again rescue the wayward son, what you need to do it take a close look at the forty or so newly elected Democrats who in January will join the next Congress.

Through an examination of their records and the platforms on which they ran, don’t they look more like Republicans than Democrats? Almost all believe in “gun rights” and thus get high marks from the NRA, all believe in “fiscal responsibility, almost all see it essential to “limit immigration,” and well over half are against gay marriage and are substantially “pro-life.”

Since 1994 they have been a part of what they call the Blue Dog Coalition; and if you think they are just another bunch of Red-Neck nuts, even before Tuesday’s landslide, there were 37 signed-up Democrat members. After this past Tuesday I suspect their number will about double. If there are 60 of them, then, that means that they will be the swing voters for any legislation that has a chance of being passed because unless there is iron-fisted control and discipline, especially in the House, if anything gets done in Congress, my guess it will look more like Republican legislation than Democrat.

Bill Clinton, of course, is responsible for this too—just as he is responsible for 9/11; defunding our intelligence operations; and, according to the House Republican leadership, even for Marc Foley. But in this case, Clinton may in fact be responsible for the Republicanization of Democrats as the result of his triangulational public policy of compromise and accommodation that included making deals with Newt Gingrich on welfare reform and taxes, among other things.

So why am I thinking this is a good thing? Because I want to see Democrats find effective ways to regain their majority status and do some good and progressive things in education, heath care, and economic and foreign policy. I would like see Democrats less vulnerable to Karl Rove-like wedge attacks, where elections in the future will turn less on prayer in schools than on resistance to preemptive wars, increases in student aid, and heath insurance provided for all children.

There was at least one exception to the crypto-Republican sweep, and I’m not referring to Hillary Clinton’s reelection (note the paean of praise in her victory speech to the “great glorious middle”). Teddy Kennedy, still unrepentantly “liberal” or “progressive,” take your pick, won another six-year term.

But he and a few other Old Dogs won’t be sniffing around the Blue Dog kennel. And the pragmatist in me or, if you prefer, the sell-out in me thinks this is not necessarily a bad thing.