Massachusetts and the Problem (?) with the Democratic Party

Okay, that title, or at least the second part of it, seems to suggest that this will be a lengthy political analysis of the struggles of the Democratic Party, illustrated by what may occur tomorrow in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the union. Really, I just want to note a few things, particularly given the drama unfolding in that state.

First, some background for those not really paying attention. Following Ted Kennedy’s death, a special election was set to determine who would fill the remainder of his term in the U.S. Senate. Most people “in the know”—at least on the national stage—did not consider this a particularly important election, because, hey, we’re talking about a Democrat running for a statewide office in a deep, deep blue state, right? Well, as it’s turned out, a liberal Republican entered the fray (liberal in the way that Mitt Romney used to be liberal, as in, pro-choice and not anti-gay rights). His name is Scott Brown. He is opposing Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general. Polls on the eve of the contest—tonight—indicate that Mr. Brown has a 75% or greater chance of winning.

The loss of Kennedy’s vacated Senate seat would give the Republicans 41 seats and the ability to filibuster any bill brought in the Senate. Linked directly to the current health care bill, this would allow the Republicans to defeat it by filibustering—tying it up in procedural red tape, essentially. Many political analysts and Democrats would view this result as “devastating” and point out the cruel irony that the former seat of the very man who was synonymous with health care expansion and reform would be used to ultimately defeat it.

And it would be a bad result. Substantively. However, politically, at least this year, it might just be the best thing that could happen to the Democrats.

Okay—that’s nuts, you say (maybe you say). Without a filibuster-proof majority, how will the Democrats get any kind of health care reform done or anything else for that matter? How will that possibly help them?

This way: the Republicans’ strategy for the last year or so has been to be the party of “no.” Any attempt to work with the Republicans—with the extremely rare exception (Susan Collins comes to mind)—has been met with a complete lack of cooperation, reaching out, any middle ground. Interestingly, even some of the supposed ideas of the Republican party which were incorporated in, say, the stimulus package (having more in tax cuts than direct spending) were basically rejected. To the Republicans in Congress, if the middle ground becomes too in the middle, they draw it back even further to the right.

It’s been an effective strategy, because the Democratic Party is a big, big tent. They have their own conservatives to wrangle with and their own hardcore liberals. Look at it this way: there are 60 Democrats versus 40 Republicans (currently) in the Senate. That’s a 3-2 ratio! Rarely have there been times in the history of this country where one party has dominated the legislature, particularly the Senate, which depends not on population but the states themselves to set their numbers. Has the country changed so much? I don’t think so. Most of the states that were liberal ten years ago are still liberal, and most of the states that were conservative are still conservative. With a few demographic exceptions—Virginia is a great example—mostly what happened is the Democrats successfully recruited moderates and conservatives to the party.

So, the Republican strategy of saying “no” was an effective short term* strategy—let them fight themselves and try to pass legislation (it’s hard). While they’re fighting amongst themselves, we can throw mud at them—and they’ll be too caught up in their own internal struggles to unify and politically defend themselves. (It helps also to be the minority party in a severe recession—the “throw the bums out” reaction works against the party of the majority simply as a matter of mathematics).

However, once the Republicans have 41 votes, the “no” strategy is severely disrupted, because it’s effective! It actually stops legislation. The Republicans can no longer take the stance that—hey, we tried, they passed it anyway. Nothing we could do. Now, the majority party must negotiate with the minority party to some degree, and the Republicans then become complicit in the results of legislation.

So, yes, I think this could actually work to the benefit of everyone in the long run. Democrats will stop their self-absorbed debate, and Republicans will be forced to come up with or participate in real solutions.

* Note that I’ve always thought that it was only good as a short term strategy, because once the economy turns around, who gets credit for it? It also causes you, if you’re a Republican, to be pushed into the awkward position of rooting against the economy. Ask some Democrats about uncomfortable and conflicted feelings about news from Iraq in 2004.

** As an aside, I just realized that I pointed out another ironic situation—the disruption of the Republicans’ policy of “no” because it becomes too effective! Wow, twice in one post. Perhaps I should try literary criticism… naaaaah.

All right, I suppose that is it for now. I’d better post this before it’s rendered completely irrelevant (I hope).

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, everyone! Let’s hope that 2010 on a macro-scale is a much better year than 2009 was. I say, “on a macro-scale,” because, despite some rather poor economics in 2009, my son was born in November of 2009, thereby making it AT LEAST one of the three best years ever (the other years being 2006, when my daughter was born, and 1996, when my now-wife and I met).

Politically, I think we can expect 2010 to be even more divisive and vitriolic than 2009. 2010 is, after all, an election year. I suspect that we will see a health bill finally pass through Congress sometime in February, and we will likely have some kind of second stimulus plan of some kind. The economy seems to be doing a bit better, but unemployment remains high, and that will likely result in big gains for the Republicans in November.

Climate legislation is expected to be taken up after passage of the health care bill, which would mean March more than likely. It will be interesting to see how that goes. If the Republicans (and big oil and coal companies) are successful in portraying a climate bill as bad for the economy, then Democrats will once again be under extreme pressure supporting a somewhat unpopular bill, this time in much greater time proximity to the election, and so less time to distance or explain what the bill is about. One hopes that the political forces lined up against a climate control bill are unsuccessful. At least, the one writing this blog post hopes so. Climate change is real, first of all, and should be countered. Secondly, if the U.S. misses the boat on energy technology innovation, it could really set us a step behind the rest of the industrialized world.

In foreign affairs, we are still mired in two large-scale force deployments, one in Iraq, the other in Afghanistan. It seems as Iraq is waning, Afghanistan is waxing. However, the end or minimization of U.S. involvement in neither seems very imminent, though I suppose we could get most of our guys out of Iraq in the next couple of years. Afghanistan seems an open-ended occupation in some ways. Though the mission is more defined—counter-insurgency—achieving that goal may take years and might not end before the country loses patience (again). I fear that Afghanistan may dog the Obama administration for the length of its tenure.

Then there’s Iran. Cue Julie Andrews—“What do you do about a problem like Ahmadinejaaaaaddd?” The forces of Iranian resistance to the revolutionary regime seem to persist. Will they be able to successfully oppose the Republican National Guard and the clerics? I’d think not, but the protests and mini-revolt has been remarkably resilient—and we’re still talking about it 7 months later. Here’s hoping.

That’s all for now. I wish everyone a sublime or at least worry-free 2010!