Is the Republican party ready to regain power? Probably not -- we have seen that how Republicans behave in the minority, especially under a Democratic president, is no predictor of how they will act in the majority. As steadfast as they have been against President Obama, relatively few Republicans who voted for the TARP bailout, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, or our exercise in Mesopotamian nation-building have repented.
Yet it is a risk conservatives have no choice but to take. Hamstrung Democrats can paradoxically be better at stifling government growth than liberated Republicans, but ineffectual Democratic majorities are like dams: the odds of anything getting through are small, but the result of any breach is catastrophic. The Blue Dogs' sense of self-preservation failed them on the stimulus and health care, both of which cry out for repeal, with cap and trade lurking not far behind.
The Democrats have now done things only Republicans can undo. The question is whether the GOP will be up to the task. They'll have to strike quickly and decisively. Most of the good the last Republican majority did was in 1995-96. By 1998, they were into earmarks and trying to out-spend Bill Clinton, with another flurry of small-ball conservative reforms during the first two years of George W. Bush.
The most important thing is to improve the quality of Republicans in Washington. So far this project has been a mixed bag. On the positive side, there is Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter, Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist, and Rand Paul over Trey Grayson. But Mark Kirk and Michael Castle will give Senate Republicans a slight nudge to the left. Things look better in the House, where there is more new blood.
Politically, Republicans are probably better off winning enough seats to effectively check Obama without giving him a Gingrich figure to demonize in 2012. The GOP excels at this role. Unfortunately, the country needs more than gridlock -- it needs Republicans to make serious in-roads in the opposite direction.
W. James Antle III is associate editor of The American Spectator
Showing posts with label control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label control. Show all posts
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Modest, clean, frugal, sensible government may become possible
Conservatives often blame elected Republicans for not producing revolutionary changes when in power. This frustration is understandable, but it is also wrongheaded. No political party can make revolutionary changes in American government unless that party not only controls the House of Representatives and the White House, but also, critically, has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Until 1919, debate in the Senate was unlimited. There was no Senate Rule which allowed for cloture, or limiting debate. A determined Senate minority could effectively stop any congressional bill, any presidential appointment (which required Senate confirmation), and any treaty.
When Democrats have had that combination of power, they have used it to radically change America. FDR had four consecutive Congresses in which Democrats could do virtually anything they wanted, because Senate Democrats could pass a cloture motion. Democrats also had filibuster-proof Senate majorities from 1963 to 1967, the years in which LBJ's Great Society program was passed.
Senate rules were changed in the 1970s. Cloture required only a three-fifths majority instead of a two-thirds majority. Under these new rules, Democrats had filibuster-proof Senate majorities, along with control of the House and White House, from 1977 to 1979. Until Scott Brown won his special election earlier this year, Obama's Democrats did not need a single Republican to pass his stimulus bill and related measures.
These four separate eras -- in which Democrats could invoke cloture without Republicans and also controlled the House and White House -- have produced those giant leaps towards big government and socialism which bedevil us today. So why have Republicans not rolled Democrat programs when they have had power? Since the cloture rule was adopted over ninety years ago, Republicans have never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (much less had that supermajority in the Senate and also controlled the House and White House).
That may change in the next three election cycles.
Until 1919, debate in the Senate was unlimited. There was no Senate Rule which allowed for cloture, or limiting debate. A determined Senate minority could effectively stop any congressional bill, any presidential appointment (which required Senate confirmation), and any treaty.
When Democrats have had that combination of power, they have used it to radically change America. FDR had four consecutive Congresses in which Democrats could do virtually anything they wanted, because Senate Democrats could pass a cloture motion. Democrats also had filibuster-proof Senate majorities from 1963 to 1967, the years in which LBJ's Great Society program was passed.
Senate rules were changed in the 1970s. Cloture required only a three-fifths majority instead of a two-thirds majority. Under these new rules, Democrats had filibuster-proof Senate majorities, along with control of the House and White House, from 1977 to 1979. Until Scott Brown won his special election earlier this year, Obama's Democrats did not need a single Republican to pass his stimulus bill and related measures.
These four separate eras -- in which Democrats could invoke cloture without Republicans and also controlled the House and White House -- have produced those giant leaps towards big government and socialism which bedevil us today. So why have Republicans not rolled Democrat programs when they have had power? Since the cloture rule was adopted over ninety years ago, Republicans have never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (much less had that supermajority in the Senate and also controlled the House and White House).
That may change in the next three election cycles.
Monday, July 6, 2009
P.J. O'Rourke: car is natural enemy of politicians
Politicians appear to be obsessed with cars and the car industry, relentlessly enacting new regulations and, under the Obama administration, seizing manufacturers or forcing them into bankruptcy?
Why the fixation?
In this video, from Reason, P.J. O'Rourke answers the questions: the goal of politicians is control, while the car is the ultimate expression and facilitator of individual freedom.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/134561.html
Why the fixation?
In this video, from Reason, P.J. O'Rourke answers the questions: the goal of politicians is control, while the car is the ultimate expression and facilitator of individual freedom.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/134561.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
