I frequently disagree with the New Republic’s editors, notably Martin Pertez who got the Iraq War wrong and is still trying to find a way to square that circle. Nonetheless, their sober assessment of the election is a good one as far as it goes:
“Until the present administration, the modern American state had no true experience with one-party rule. Even during those times when Democrats controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they were a fractious assortment of Northern progressives and Southern conservatives, more coalition than true party. President Clinton’s toughest battles during his first two years came with the Democrats running Congress. When Bush won the presidency, there was at last a single party with total control of the levers of power and a relatively coherent vision of government’s role. They kept inventing new ways to turn their power into a self-perpetuating machine. It was a frightening thing to behold.
From the moment they took control of Congress in 1994, Republicans handed over astonishing power to the business lobby to rewrite regulations and the tax code to its liking. Republicans held votes in the dead of night, let lobbyists author legislation, and elevated the pork barrel to the central operating principle of government. Their entire legislative program was a massive payoff.
The Republican-K Street nexus, along with the slanted districting of the House, made the ruling claque appear almost unbeatable. And, indeed, it took a staggering combination of factors - a failing war, stagnant wages, endless scandals, the near-loss of a major U.S. city - to finally pry the levers of power out of Republican fingers.
When they won Congress in 1994, Republicans hubristically called it a ‘revolution.’ November 7/2006, was not a revolution, and nobody should expect unbroken sunny days to follow. But it did end a dismal period in American political life, and for that we can only rejoice.”
I think one might benefit from Alexander Cockburn’s useful corrective. I don’t know that I’m completely with Cockburn on this one, to take one example I’m hopeful for an improvement in national health care coverage (mindful that DNC Chair Howard Dean last night on the Daily Show suggested that we’re looking at coverage for everyone under 24 instead of true universal coverage for all). But Cockburn’s much more forthright in spelling out what the situation is - recognizing half measures for their limited impact - and properly raising the specter of how much further we need to go. We’ve stopped the Republican-induced national hemorrhaging - but we still need to heal before we can really get better.
Post a Comment