One Party Government Does Not Equal "Extreme"

Republicans have unveiled their closing argument. Desperate to prevent a huge Democratic landslide, Republicans warn that one-party government under Democrats would surely mean liberal extremism.

Raising the specter of an "Obama, Pelosi and Reid" government, Sen. John McCain refers to the combination of Sen. Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as a "dangerous threesome." Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) warns, "Liberals are bent on handing Barack Obama a filibuster-proof Senate majority to rubber-stamp his radical agenda."

The argument is based on a misreading of American history. For during periods of one-party government, when Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress, history demonstrates that they have not shifted radically toward a leftward agenda.

Few observers, other than those on the far right, characterized the New Deal as liberal extremism in action. Most perceived President Franklin D. Roosevelt as an experimenter who tried to please everyone. FDR and his Democratic counterparts did everything in their power to save capitalism from the threat of totalitarianism and communism during the Great Depression.

The period between 1933 and 1938 witnessed a dramatic expansion of government. But with each and every policy, Democrats were careful to constrain the ability of government officials to control capitalist institutions and to protect the power of state and local government.

The rest of this article can be found at the Washington Independent

Comments

[sposton]

I think anything is better than what we've had for the last eight years. But I don't think we will get the kind of positive change so many Americans desire. We delivered democratic control of congress in 2006 and see what that brought us. So they did not have super majority, so what? They could have at least spoken up against the criminals, or started impeachment proceedings. They did nothing and I think we will get more of the same.

[VikingQuest]

"I don't think we will get the kind of positive change so many Americans desire"

And so many Americans don't want those changes too, Obama barely has 50% of the vote meaning 50% of Americans aren't on board . . . forget those people or what?

[LeftRight]

You're right, he barely has 50%. On the other hand less than 40% is saying that they absolutely don't like him. That leaves around 10% which may or may not like his running for President. And no matter what, they like the IDEA of change, since more than 70% don't want the country on the same track!!

[sposton]

But that would be more than enough for Bush to claim a mandate! "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."

I think the majority of non-racist anti-Obama voters will be pleased with Obama centrist positions when he starts governing. It is those who expect much real change that will be disappointed with Obama.

[loonwalk]

I so agree with you, Julian.
The Republicans at work and elsewhere are in full battle dress this week.
When I ask a question of them, I get a talking point., something like: "I don't think Obama's a terrorist; he's a socialist". When I explain socialism, they fall silent for a moment and change the subject to "those leftwing 'bloggers' are so angry and spreading distortion" presumably of "their" facts. They say, "Oh, I don't listen to Savage- he's too over the top but Rush is always taken out of context...Calls Powell endorsement racial? I didn't hear that, but that's probably true".
After so many years of brainwashing, how are we supposed to quell and enlighten such mis-informed, entrenched people (victims)?

[vegas9999]

The 1 party rule does not mean much unless one party gets the big 60 in the senate. If the democrats get the 60 they so desire, we will see changes most people cannot imagine. They are now talking about the fairness doctrine which will be just the start. This will not be the same country I once fought for.

[sposton]

I really doubt we will see much real change with Pelosi and Reid and even with Obama. There will be a certain change in style and competence just because Obama succeeds the worst president in history. But if we expect substantial change we will be disappointed.

[Loki11467]

we had 1 party rule with the GOP recently. Based on their performance the Democrats have a really low bar to hurdle to be considered a success.

[jeffmojo]

Look at the first two years of the Clinton administra­tion....uh­, never mind,that was a disaster. Well, look at the first two years of the Bush administra­tion......­..uh,never­mind.

[LeftRight]

Actually, the first two years of the Clinton admin weren't that bad, and a major thing that WAS bad was that the dems who WERE in charge of the House and Senate weren't sticking with the party.

And the first two years of the bush admin were only 2/3 one party rule. Technically the dems had a majority in the Senate after one Senator crossed from the repubs to the dems.

[booksnmore4you]

When Republicans warn against the supposed perils of one-party government, ask them right then and there if they will commit to never achieving one.

Of course, they will balk.

But at certain moments in history, where action simply must happen and gridlock cannot be a component, a one-party government is the only way to go.

Now is such a time for the Dems.

[guntotinganglion]

They're warning us about a one party system...like the one they had until 21 months ago. Maybe they've a point, cause god knows they virtually destroyed America with their crimes and incompetence. That said, the Democrats couldn't do worse, because no one could do worse than what the Republicans have done since Bush took the office after not being elected (he was electoraled). They had several years before that of controlling the legislative branch, from the time of Newt Gingrich's Contract On America in 1994...and that all worked out really well.

The only way to have anything other than Republican dictatorial control, is to gain the veto proof majorities in the House and Senate, and make sure to get the filibuster proof majority in the Senate. There is no other way to stop the gridlock that Republicans have inflicted on the 110th Congress with their world record filibusters (104 as of Oct. 2), which are on track to doubling the previous record (63). Republicans either get exactly what they dictate, or they shut down the system and blame the lack of action on the Democrats. It's all they've got in the minority, and they wield it with ruthless abandon...on EVERYTHING the Democrats try to clear the Senate. Time to take that away from them and send them to the corner to put on the dunce hat and be quiet through the next session of the Congress. They act like vicious children, they should be treated as such.

[research]

So much GOP BS to fix, so much to build.

The GOP has kept their promise to filibuster every democratic move.

The GOP are Anarchists!

Obama and a filibuster proof Congress!

[robbie44]

If the Democrats took control of the big three and screwed up,there would be only one party to blame.

[Danigirl65]

Just like there was for the first 6 years of the Bush administration - where did that get us?? Now, the Democratic held Congress is being held accountable for the previous six years and nobody seems to notice the vetoes by Bush and the filibusters (remember, a majority is NOT filibuster proof) by the Republican party.

I say give the Dems a shot; it can't get any more broken that it already is.

[VikingQuest]

Not yet it doesn't, a veto proof would be extreme and that is something we all have to worry about. It won't last long if it is however because there is always a backlash once people see what is going on.

[LeftRight]

Why would a Democratic Congress require a veto-proof majority with a President Obama????? Don't you mean a FILIBUSTER-proof majority? The difference is stark, since a Filibuster-proof majority is 50%+1 in the House, and 60% in the Senate. A VETO-proof majority is 2/3 in BOTH houses!

[nextone]

even though i'm a card carrying dem, i'm a little worried about fully democratic executive and legislative (and possibly judicial) branches. i'm a true believer in checks and balances (remember that, supposedly constituti­on-oriente­d repbulicans?) between all branches. i feel like that those important balances will be lost....but i'm hoping that the dems can restore the checks and balances that bush destroyed in the executive office.

however, i'll probably be voting a fully dem ticket on nov 4.

obama 2008!

[VikingQuest]

Checks and balances are what make this country great . . . the debate not the silencing.

[Skepticat]

Strange coming from the party that wanted to get a permanent majority.