Realizing the Revolution

Last week marked the third special election in which Republicans lost a House seat long held by their party. First, Dennis Hastert's seat in Illinois was wrested from the Republicans, an effort largely credited to the Obama organization outfitted to assist on the ground. The Louisiana 6th was next, followed by the Mississippi 1st, two districts so conservative they had been rarely considered in play. The Democratic Party's success is a frightening omen for the Republican leadership, a relative calm before a fast approaching political storm.

Democrats are poised to build on the gains they made in 2006, with a potential of picking up more than twenty seats in the House, pushing the Republicans even further into the wilderness of the minority. On the Senate side, there is equally good news. Democrats seem all but certain to pick up seats in Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, and New Hampshire, and are also well positioned to defeat Gordon Smith in Oregon. Republican Senators are also running weakly in Alaska, Texas, Maine, Minnesota, Kentucky, and North Carolina. If the special elections thus far are, as Republican Congressman Tom Davis suggested, "canaries in the coal mines," Democrats may very well see a gain sufficient to guarantee a 60 seat, filibuster-proof majority.

With such tremendous prospects for the Democratic party, and no sign that the Republicans have a plan to counter the inevitable, January of 2009 may well begin with a Democrat in office more powerful than any president in modern memory.

If Barack Obama is elected in such an environment, some historical precedents come to mind. The first is 1992, in which Bill Clinton ascended to the presidency at a time when Democrats controlled a 40 seat majority in the House and a six seat majority in the Senate. Given that these numbers are so similar to the ones Obama will inherit, there may be reason for pause. After all, Bill Clinton managed to bumble his first two years so badly that, in 1994, Republicans swept into power on the wave of the Gingrich revolution, leaving Clinton neutered, and a number of his campaign promises unrealized.

But 2008 is a far different scenario than 1992; beyond the numbers, the analogy fails to hold. The Democratic Party had been, for forty years, the entrenched majority in Congress. Though they maintained control after the 1992 election, they lost nine House seats. Frustration with Democrats, both in Congress and in the White House, had grown so much so that Bill Clinton was elected by running away from his party. Clinton's message of change was less about furthering the kind of progressive agenda that Congressional Democrats had envisioned, and more about co-opting Republican policies - from NAFTA to welfare reform. The Clintons' push for universal health care struck an adversarial tone with Members, shutting out many who had spent careers preparing to play a role. The circumstances in the country were different. The policy goals of the White House were different. And the tactical and strategic decisions were shoddy, arrogant, and misguided.

In 2008, Barack Obama will be riding a different kind of wave into the White House, one in which the country will be universally calling for unified, Democratic control in all branches of government. Rather than running away from Democratic philosophy, Obama has embraced it, pushing forth a progressive agenda that appeals to the Democratic base and Independents alike, without sacrifice. His rise to power evokes other historical precedents in which the analogy is far more accurate.

Like Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt, Barack Obama's election will follow what Stephen Skowronek described as "disjunctive" presidencies, those in which the presidents went so wayward, and economic conditions became so unacceptable, that the American people called for and accepted wholesale political revolution. Herbert Hoover's abysmal handling of the Great Depression paved the way for FDR's dramatic rise to power and realignment of the political spectrum. Jimmy Carter, presiding over double digit inflation, a botched hostage crisis, and a speaking voice that, in both style and content, warned of midnight in America, was an essential precondition for Reagan's revolution.

In the House of Representatives, Democrats gained 97 seats when FDR was elected. In the Senate, they gained twelve. It was with that governing majority and that dramatic mandate for change that FDR built his new kind of politics.

His was a lasting legacy for the Democratic Party and the country. If the 2008 Congressional elections continue with the trend they've begun, an Obama presidency might well leave a similar mark.

Comments

[57basque]

With all this talk about American's making an honest 21st century wage, which many don't. If we want to take the trash/cash from the super rich, and spread it out among the People. We have got to get someone in power to let the Unions set up the Mondragon Cooperative of the Basque in Northern Spain.

But that will not be enough. We have to bring ALL of our soldiers home from ALL OVER THIS BEAUTIFUL PLANET. Bring all the Navy Ships back to Port. Than make a statement by painting them like colorful flowers. This song is a drumbeat for Peace: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87ryX961UK0

Then we can use all the guns and bombs budget to build electric cars that we can plug into our solar powered roofs. Which would put generations to work on something that will bring about Peace. What Taoz said before the Lamb, "Where armies are quartered, thorns and thistles will spring forth." 9-11 was the fruits of America's ways. (The greedy capitalistic ways. Not the ways most of US Dream of.)

[marignymitch]

Bush can make this all go away in October with a simple red alert, followed by his executive order (can't remember its number, I think it has five digits) naming him dictator in chief, followed by martial law, followed by attack on Iran, followed by suspension of election.

It'll solve his manifest legal problems too.

Presto!

(I'm just sayin'.)

[SmokinJobaman]

Like the Republicans in 94, the Democrats in 2008 will likely overreach or, in some cases, underreach. Instead of truly looking for effective compromises, the majority will push their will down the throats of the minority. Ear marks will reign. Scandals will be uncovered. Real problems like Social Security solvency will be ignored. Unexpected developments with hard choice responses will emerge internationally. Republicans and Democrats will snipe at each other. And, in a year or two, we'll see the seeds of the next presidential candidates being sown. The media will exaggerate and ignore, sensationalize and downplay, trivialize and oversell. Does anyone really think we're going to see some kind of amazing "coming together" in the near future? Have any of the presidential candidates proven themselves capable in that sense. Not.

[indypete]

Oh how I'd love to see the current regime overturned with a filibuster-proof majority! (Remember when the repubs were whining about filibusters on the SC judges issue?) We'd have the democrat crooks in charge instead of the republican crooks. (Here's my analogy... Obama will rob me, Hillary will rob me and burn down my house, McCain will rob me, burn down my house, have my wife raped, sell my grandchildren into slavery and somehow stick me with all his household bills.) But don't get too excited yet about having the lesser crooks at the helm. The presidential election will be even easier to fix than the last couple. Even if it isn't fixed (or isn't fixed enough) the new caretakers will be shovelling an Everest- sized pile of shit created by cheney and his pet poodle, georgie. This pile will slow down any attempt to get anything done and the right-wingers, after a couple of years of watching the effort (and stymying it wherever possible) will twist things around and give the impression that it's a brand new pile and nothing to do with them. I've seen it all before, and not just in this country.

[usedtowander]

Satisfaction = Perception - Expectation

Performance to expectation results in neutral feelings
Performance better than expectation results in satisfaction
Performance below expectation results in dissatisfaction

Hope is not a Strategy

You might want to dial down the comparisons to FDR.
You're more than a little carried away with the best-case possibilities and setting expectations at a very challenging level.
You might actually do better for Obama and the Democratic Party if you dial it way down.

[BBackSoon]

. GOP is backed into a corner. Remember nothing fights like a rat backed into a corner

[breakfast]

The three Democrats who won the recent House primary elections are conservative, as were most of those elected in 2006, so it is hard to look for much progress if that trend continues. Still, the powers of the office of President have been grotesquely expanded. McCain or Clinton would not even consider giving up any power and would probably seek to expand it, further cementing the Empire. This is not encouraging, given that very many many people would like to see this power rolled back and most, if not all, of Bush's work undone.

I have no idea what Obama might do, but I am willing to take that chance, although I am not optimistic. Remember, Democrats have gone along with Bush almost as slavishly as the Republicans.

[FogCityJohn]

Please, can we stop repeating the Republican meme that the Democrats elected in 2006 were "conservative"? Did you take a serious look at most of them? How about John Yarmuth in Louisville, an outspoken liberal who knocked off Ann Northrup? Or Senator John Tester in Montana, who campaigned on his express desire to repeal the Patriot Act? Don't buy into the Republican spin.

[RobBob]

I appreciate the optimism -- 'hope' if you will -- expressed here. Beware though of hubris. This thing ain't even started, let alone won. Obama does have the potential to be a great president; let's make sure he gets the chance!

[wolfi101]

Absolutely right. And we all know how declaring oneself the "inevitable" victor prematurely can work against the candidate.

[dapperd72]

"A single spark can start a prairie fire."
-- Mao Tse-Tung

The Republicans pre-ordained their own self-destruction by marching in lockstep to the beat of the Shrub for the past 7 years (with a few notable exceptions). Clinton's derogatory remarks against Obama in contrast, wherein she claimed that only she & McCain had "passed the threshhold to be Commander-in-Chief" while Obama only "had a speech he gave in 2002," serve to rescue the GOP from this self-induced nihilism. Meanwhile a certain contingent of die-hard Clinton devotees vow to vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee, while claiming to be pro-choice on reproductive rights, vindictive against NARAL for their Obama endorsement and ignoring McCain's anti-woman voting record in general.

Indeed we need universal single-payer health care, beyond Clinton & Obama's proposals, as advocated by the Green Party platform, but at least Obama openly admits that we can't recreate the wheel, though he doesn't reject the concept out of hand. Nor is he the "most liberal" Senator when compared to Bernie Sanders (VT) who's a supreme credit to the institution.

[navalvet]

Today's news about Congressman Fossella's decision not to run for reelection may put his New York seat in play. Even Peter King, from suburban New York should be worried.
Nevertheless, it would take a strong showing in the Senate races to enable a Democratic president to sit down with the remaining Republicans and come up with real solutions to the problems on American minds: Iraq, healthcare, and economic security. The ideal would be that the Democrats would be so strong that there would be little need to compromise.

[HGS111]

" A little revolution every now and then is a healthy thing "

Captain Ramius in " The Hunt For Red October "

[dadw5boys]

Thomas Jefferson would have already stormed the White House with armed men and be holding courtyard trials of the whole Bush Adminstration.

[indypete]

Yeah, but don't forget if that little fracas 200-odd years ago had gone the other way, he'd have hung for treason. Security is a bit more sophisticated now... I doubt he'd get past the fence today!

[wolfi101]

Where's Ol' Tommy Boy, when you need him....

Really, though. I think, this has less to do with a ( potential ) Democratic Win, than it does a Republican defeat. The GOP had everything going for it for a time ---> controlling both houses, the White House, and probably even the judiciary [ but i'd have to check on that last one ]. And what did they do?

They decided they could ignore the people. They ran roughshod over our freedoms, economy, and security. They did little but harm this country and now, the piper's come a-calling and there's the devil to pay.

This li'l honky, Independent guy will be gladly casting a vote for Obama in November.

[ProudLiberalDan]

While I'm glad he'll be powerful...

Now lets see if we can get Obama to dump his weak health care proposals and endorse single-payer health care. The first two years before the 2010 midterms may be a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enact progressive change and health care is still Obama's weakest domestic policy area. (This is not an endorsement of Clinton's ripoff of Edwards' plan -- both plans are less than the single-payer, universal health care system, this nation needs and deserves.)

If the Democrats are ever so lucky to have the Presidency and a Congressional Majority again, let's hope they use that power more effectively and nimbly than the 1992-94 disaster when everyone's egos got in the way. There may not be a second chance in our lifetime.

[chefrasta]

As much as single payer health care is important to we the people the most important thing right now is finding a solution to this debacle in Iraq and reining in this runaway military and neo-imperialist tendencies

[UnbiasView]

Iraq is not the main issue, it's the economy stupid.

[UnbiasView]

You people need to give up this whole socialized health care thing because it isn't going to happen, don't get your hopes up because it is going to be a bigger disappointment when the numbers are crunched.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Nope. No need to give up.

Every day more and more people are losing access to health care because conservative blind faith in the free market just doesn't work.

Employer-based insurance is no longer a reliable foundation for health care and is making us uncompetitive.

Conservativism has failed America in this and every other policy area.

[dadw5boys]

Lets see if we TAKE OUT the Insurance Company's FEES AND PROFITS, the Hospital Adminstrations PROFITS, the Radiologist side PROFITS and the STATE TAX DOLLARS DONATIONS to hospitals out of the Medical Care cost DOCTORS AND NURSES COULD BE PAID NEARLY TWICE WHAT THEY MAKE NOW AND THAT IS A BAD THING??????????

The Key words are FEES AND PROFITS!!!!!!!

If you add up all the things that increase the cost of Medical Care then you have nearly 50% of the Health Care spending going to businesses that do nothing but profit and slow down health care delivery.

LET'S PAY THE HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL FOR THEIR SKILLS NOT PAPER PUSHERS WHO PROVIDE NO HEALTH CARE.

THE GOVERNMENT CARE MANAGE THE HOSPITAL FOR BILLIONS LESS THAN SO CALLED PROFESSIONAL WITH 3 OR 4 MAKING $390,000 SALARYS TO MAKE SURE THE ROOMS ARE CLEAN, FLOORS ARE CLEAN, FOOD IS HEALTHY AND THE NURSES ALL HAVE TRAINING.

Health Care Adminstration is not providing actual health care. Of course Americans would then need to bring a freind with them IF THEY NEED SOMEONE TO HOLD THEIR HAND constantly. So much is spent just to baby many people. GROW UP these Doctors and Nurses are busy don't whin about bedside manners.

[indypete]

You;re right in a way. We're unlikely to get socialised health care because the crooked insurance companies that own both parties will not allow it. In your right wing world the crooks always prosper. (Unfortunately, they have a tendency to prosper in a left wing world too but that's another argument... this one is about which crook you prefer). If you prefer paying far too much for health care then finding yourself being denied the payout you need because you had a boo-boo twenty years ago that you didn't mention on your application then that's your business, that's the sort of crooks you prefer. Me, I prefer crooks who give me what I pay for... if my taxes are higher, so be it, it'll still be less costly than private insurance and I will get care when I need it instead of being denied on a technicality. Don't forget, when you see the numbers, they have been crunched by the insurance people and the paid-for politicians...the very people who are using this system to rob you. I'm an immigrant (30-odd years ago) and I grew up with national health. It works perfectly well. Everything the insurance industry and their surrogates in government tell you about it is a lie.... they have their profits and bribes (excuse me, "campaign donations") to protect.

[ResidentChimp]

That's a scary thought. I wonder who Obama would surrender to first? Most of the terrorist states that endorsed him will be lining up to get their payoffs. Luckily this is just a pipe dream from the Dems. Marxist Obama is not going to get elected.

[Siryn]

living up to your name, eh?

[ChimpNchief]

I love the way rethuglickers just make up their own facts.

And your party with Rove at the helm set out to create a permanent Republican majority by stealing elections and firing attorneys who didn't tow the party line. Now it's scandals 24/7 and your party of thugs is going belly up.

Don't feel too bad. The democrats learned from the best criminals in the business. That would be the GOP.

[Umungus]

I'm glad you're scared.

[chefrasta]

Surrender, you remind me of the coward who would sacrifice every women child to save his own ass.There is nothing wrong in trying to talk and come to an agreement. Listening to idiots like you we should have committed genocide against the world instead of talking to the Soviet Union and Red China.Your name says it all "Chimp'

[drjay79]

Marxist Obama.....­..........­..what is this the 1950's? How childish.

[ShamusDaedal]

When Obama and his family take up residence in the White House they’ll be the classiest to live there since Roosevelt and JFK!!

Now they are attacking his economic plan! I wonder how many can see it’s almost exactly like Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. The programs of that day were fought against tooth and nail by the GOP using all the same tactics being paraded by the modern “Compassionate Conservatives”.

Those programs worked! When I was a child my father told me that so many were out of work that he and many others feared an armed rebellion! Wouldn’t that have been fun! The New Deal cooled that. Sure, a lot of fiat money was printed to finance the New Deal but so many of the previously unemployed became tax payers that by the time of Pearl Harbor we were on our way. Sadly, the massive defense spending that even the troglodyte Republicans couldn’t vote against pulled us out of the deep Depression only to become like a drug addiction that we still haven’t been able to kick. Hey, the GOP even invents enemies to attack to feed the addiction and line their buddy’s pockets!

Give a President Obama a Congress that will cooperate and perhaps we can rebuild that New Deal the crooks have worked so long to destroy! Pulling everyone into the work will make this the country I've loved all over again.

[ShamusDaedal]

I'm anticipating that the criminal element now running the once proud GOP will attempt to steal yet another election, with "fixes" in place to keep the Congress either gelded or tilted right.

Complaints to the high court would be useless, obviously, with men like Scalia and Thomas ignoring the Constitution again as they did in 2000 by reaching into sovereign states to take totally unauthorized power. They, at least Scalia, countenance TORTURE for Pete's sake!

Such men have already shown that they are moral ciphers.

Lord help us.

[devanate]

I'm expecting Bush to launch a war on Iran and use it as an excuse to postpone elections indefinitely. Pelosi, I blame you. You had no business taking impeachement off the table.

[Cathexis]

Launching a war and postponing elections would certainly put impeachment *back* on the table!