“We Could Be In for a Lurch to the Left,” Fred Barnes:
For the first time since the 1960s, liberal Democrats are dominant. They are all but certain to have a lopsided majority in the House, and either a filibuster-proof Senate or something close to it. If Barack Obama wins the presidency today, they’ll have an ideological ally in the White House.
A sharp lurch to the left and enactment of a liberal agenda, or major parts of it, are all but inevitable. The centrist limits in earlier eras of Democratic control are gone. In the short run, Democrats may be constrained by the weak economy and a large budget deficit. Tax hikes and massive spending programs, except those billed as job creation, may have to be delayed.
But much of their agenda — the “card check” proposal to end secret ballots in union elections, the Fairness Doctrine to stifle conservative talk radio, liberal judicial nominees, trade restrictions, retreat from Iraq, talks with Iran — doesn’t require spending. And after 14 years of Republican control of Congress, the presidency, or both, Democrats are impatient. They want to move quickly.
Democrats had large majorities when Jimmy Carter became president in 1977 (61-38 in the Senate, 292-143 in the House) and when Bill Clinton took office in 1993 (56-44, 258-176). So why are their prospects for legislative success so much better now?
The most significant change is in the ideological makeup of the Democratic majorities. In the Carter and Clinton eras, there were dozens of moderate and conservative Democrats in Congress, a disproportionate number of them committee chairs. Now the Democratic majorities in both houses are composed almost uniformly of liberals. Those few who aren’t, including the tiny but heralded gang of moderates elected to the House in 2006, usually knuckle under on liberal issues. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bosses them around like hired help.
In the past, senior Democrats intervened to prevent a liberal onslaught. Along with Republicans, they stopped President Carter from implementing his plan to pull American troops out of South Korea.
They forced him to accept a cut in the tax rate on capital gains and an increase in defense spending. A bloc of Democrats also helped kill a bill designed to broaden picketing rights and a labor-law reform measure to strengthen labor’s hand in organizing and negotiating with employers, the top priorities of organized labor in the 1970s.
With President Clinton in the White House, the chief goal of liberals was passage of national health-care legislation. Success seemed likely until numerous Democrats balked, including the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
There are no strong-minded liberal renegades such as Moynihan in Congress now, and few Democrats inclined, much less willing, to question liberal dogma. And most committee chairs in the Senate and House are liberals.
Another important change is the enhanced power of liberal interest groups. The influence of organized labor, environmental activists, militant pressure groups like MoveOn.org, left-wing civil libertarians, teachers, trial lawyers and feminists is stronger than it has ever been in Washington. Democrats are leery of bucking them on even the smallest issue.
This was clear in 2005, when the House voted on the innocuous Central America Free Trade Agreement (Cafta). Though the treaty was unlikely to have any impact on American jobs or wages, organized labor opposed it fiercely. Democrats were threatened with union-funded primary opponents if they voted for it. Cafta barely passed, 217-215, with 15 Democrats backing the treaty.
The so-called Cafta 15 survived the 2006 election, but that wasn’t the end of their ordeal. They’re still constantly pilloried at labor gatherings. The attacks have worked, both as a lesson in political harassment for the 15 dissidents and as a warning to other Democrats. Any lingering free-trade sentiment among congressional Democrats has been snuffed out.
An even more telling reflection of labor’s new power in Washington is lockstep Democratic support for card check, which the union movement wants to organize reluctant workers. Card check is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American public. But as a lavish funder of the Democratic Party and the biggest source of manpower in Democratic campaigns, labor expects Democrats to vote for it anyway. And union leaders care a lot more about the issue than the public does.
We saw the results last year. In the House, only two Democrats (out of 230) voted against card check. In the Senate, every Democrat but one voted to halt a Republican filibuster of card check (the filibuster prevailed). That lone Democrat, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, was absent due to illness.
There’s still another change in Washington that shouldn’t be overlooked: a mainstream media that’s become reflexively liberal. It’s true the national press corps has been monopolized by liberals for years. The difference now is that the media’s liberal tendencies are unleashed and permeate reporting on national affairs.
[…]
What might bar liberals from running wild in Washington? A wave of vetoes by President John McCain, should he upset Mr. Obama today, would slow them down. Enough Senate Republicans to continue the filibuster strategy that succeeded in blocking liberal legislation the past two years would also work.
But these are long shots, and so is Democratic self-restraint. Mr. Obama has been quietly letting it be known that, if elected, he doesn’t want to overreach. It’s unclear what he has in mind, if anything. And Mrs. Pelosi said last week that bigger majorities in Congress will cause Democrats to be bipartisan. No one in Washington believed her, and no one should have.
Can we force change upon you?
YES WE CAN!
…
…unless…
It’s bad when dirty socialists take power in your little country. There’s a lot of that agenda Fred mentioned what will leave shit stains forever on the national couch. That’s unfortunate but I guess you can get a coverlet at Target.
Well…fuck me to tears!
We are going to be well and truly fucked, sans K-Y.
McCain will win though. More and more I’m feeling it today. Hopefully it won’t be called too soon cause I’m gonna pick up happy capitalist comfort food to eat before they announce the winer.
“a mainstream media that’s become reflexively liberal. It’s true the national press corps has been monopolized by liberals for years. The difference now is that the media’s liberal tendencies are unleashed and permeate reporting on national affairs.”
Duh.
I meant winner. Duh. You knew that. I will go have a cigarette now.
Money markets are pro free capital. The stock market today is telling. There is a lot of big fund money that will exit if Barry wins. Never ever fade the markets. It is a consensus that knows more than any one person ever will.
PA will go red.
Same in 2004. Market rallied all day, selling off heavily for 10 minutes that night when one of the alphabet news channels reported exit polls showing Kerry winning OH big, then it picked up right again and was at new highs in 25 minutes later predicting GWB’s victory.
Same thing here, same scenario unfolding. Capital does not like Obama.
People still think Fred Barnes is relevant? Huh. Who knew…
Horrors
I’m still confused… I thought it was Hopiness and Changitude…
Oh, and stop using my dinner as fuel…
Marxists, Leninists, MoveOners, Fringies, labor thugs, greenies…because “it’s their turn!!”
See you in camp.
PA will go red and Baracky, he will feel very sad. I’m such a loser he’s think to himself. A big dopey unaccomplished dirty socialist loser. And M’chelle will say ok now what’s the deal with this Vera bitch?
oh. *he’ll* think to himself. I should drink more coffee but I’m not feeling it really. This is a stupid day.
Fred Barnes?
Good story here on why Obama is “Toast”
Happyfeet, like someone else said, I wish I had your faith.
Seriously, if you want to be cheered up, go read that post I linked.
It’s like the guy is channeling happyfeet or something.
You’ll see I think. Baracky peaked way too soon and the media can’t carry him over the finish line. They’re spent and it’s out of their hands. Now all he has is ACORN and litigations and screechings later. Tomorrow we will all be very not gloaty cause it was sure a sobering prospect to have a dirty socialist that close to the White House I think.
Ok maybe a little gloaty. The media needs to have to eat this one.
WOLVERINES!!
(Dibs on Lea Thompson)
You know, for real. Trying to foist a dirty socialist onto a country really relatively shortly after a devastating terrorist attack was really uncaring I think. Our media is really evil and broken I think.
That’d be more droll if it wasn’t true…
You just made my day, Dave in SoCal.
You just made my day, Dave in SoCal.
And Sean Malstrom made mine. This guy, who is apparently a former political analyst, has all the factors in this election NAILED.
Do not go gentle into that dystopia
And Sean Malstrom made mine.
He made a very strong case in that post. Where I was just saying, “ta hell with it” before, I’m tugging my chin now. I might just watch some coverage tonight.
I plan on enjoying a victory cigar as I listen to wailing and gnashing of teeth on the msn. The Olber-douche’s head explodes in brilliant, digital clarity!
Are we starting to see the first cracks in the Obama/MSM facade?
That should have been …Obama/MSM “Victory is Inevitable” facade…
With apologies to Roland Emmerich:
“We are, once again, fighting for our freedom. Fighting for our right to live free. To exist. To prosper.
“And should we win the day, this day will be known as the day conservatives declared in one voice: ‘We will not go quietly into the night; we will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on…we’re going to survive. Today, we celebrate our independence day.”
Fuck yeah. I just read Sean Malstrom’s column.