A Democratic Sweep Doesn't Mean A New "Great Society" Is Coming
Yes, there's lots of talk about a Democratic sweep on Tuesday. And yes, there's also lots of talk about the Democrats winning enough seats in the Senate to get to the magic number of 60 and, therefore, to have enough votes to stop a Republican filibuster.
But the fear I have heard repeatedly expressed over the past few weeks about 2008 being a repeat of what happened in 1964 is TOTALLY UNFOUNDED (Please excuse the bolded, underlined caps but I needed to say this as unambiguously as possible). In fact, there are a number of reasons why the 2008 election will produce very, very different results from what happened back then.
First, the big Democratic sweep in 1964 meant that Lyndon Johnson had a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, is predicting that to happen on Tuesday. Indeed, the tremendous advantages most incumbents have these days combined with the way congressional districts were redrawn after the 2000 census means that it would be almost impossible for the Democrats to win that many seats no matter how big of a margin its presidential candidate gets, how big of a fundraising advantagethey have over the GOP, and how disatisfied the country is with George Bush and the economy.
Second, even if the Democrats were to get a two-thirds majority in both houses, the people being elected will be vastly different from those elected in 1964. Most of the Democrats who manage to beat incumbent Republicans or take over open seats in districts formerly held by Republicans will be far more fiscally conservative than the Democrats who won 44 years earlier. Indeed, the three Democrats who won in special elections this past year were all fiscal conservatives who four decades earlier would likely have been more comfortable running as Republicans.
Third, the size of this year's deficit -- $1 trillion or more and counting -- will make it harder than ever before for the new members (and many of the old ones) to vote for anything like Medicare, Medicaid, and the other Great Society programs enacted in 1965.
Fourth, my strong guess is that the Democratic leadership will be extremely sensitive to the political plight of the newly elected Democrats from previously Republican districts and will not ask them to walk the political plank by voting for programs that will get them in trouble back home and cost them their seats in 2010.
Finally, there were no "Blue Dogs" back in 1964 but there sure as hell are now. The Blue Dogs are not just the group of Democrats who have made "fiscal responsibility" their mantra. They are the group of Democrats who, if they choose to use it, will hold the balance of power next year and could be an absolute check on any effort to create big new programs.
Couldn't agree more
The Democrats have taken the middle ground as the Republican party moved to the extreme right.
Tinklenberg, who will, God willing, replace Bachmann, is a Blue Dog Democrat -- fiscally conservative, thoughtful, intelligent, and responsive to the constituents. And this is in the most Republican congressional district in Minnesota, so he will have to respect the conservative values.
He can get re-elected, especially if he brings home earmarks to fix two or three key bridges in the district that are literally falling down. Bachmann, who opposes earmarks, was unable to get money for these projects -- one bridge closed and citizens are angry about that, and they realize that she is useless in getting what we need for transportation. Pro-life and anti-gay doesn't mean so much when people are losing their homes, jobs, and business climate is deteriorating.
If Tinklenberg can swing money for necessary infrastructure improvements to our district he can get re-elected. And Bachmann, if she returns, cannot get this money because her peers won't play nice with her -- especially after she said they should all be investigated for their anti-America views.
Crystal Ball
Thank you, Mr. Collender, for getting out your crystal ball and telling us that 2009 won't be like 1964. Perhaps 'crystal ball' is too generous. As far as I can tell, your predictions are based on nothing at all.
If Obama wins, he will convince a Democrat-majority Congress and a gullible public that drastic actions are needed to fix the economy now and to prevent economic harm to "the little guys" in the future. Of course, his proposals will create more government power and control, more nanny-statism, and more wealth redistributions (with punishing taxes on the economically successful to pay for government services and handouts to "the little guys"). This will all be done in the name of financial security and fairness. The result will be an economic disaster worse than the effects of all the "Great Society" programs combined. Mr. Collender claims that the huge deficit will prevent the disaster I describe above. But, when in recent history has our federal government truly been concerned about the deficit? Even Republican administrations ran up huge deficits. Why would Obama be different? If the deficit got too enormous, he'd just propose more taxes on wealthy persons.
I based my predictions on Obama's voting record, speeches, and writings and on previous situations where a Democrat-majority Congress and a left-wing Democratic President cooperated in the tasks of inflating government power and raising taxes to fund the new programs and bureaucracies. We should know by 2010 which of us predicts best.
Hope you're right but...
I would really like to believe you, but I only find the third reason you give at all persuasive. Johnson could probably have passed his welfare state with something like the majorities that are predicted for Tuesday, and I think the Democratic Leadership is more likely to be of the opinion that the public has so strongly repudiated Bush that they've got reelection in the bag as to think that they're living on borrowed time. I agree with you that the size of the debt and deficit make it harder on them, but that doesn't mean they can't do a lot of damage. It's not like anyone's ever repealed the Great Society, after all.
So I really hope you're right, but I'm more inclined to agree with Dr. T. The looming Congressional majority is the ONLY reason I'm breaking with my perfect libertarian voting record and pulling the lever for John McCain.
2/3s not required
If they get close to 60, Dems will be able to buy off a Rep or 2 to get their bills through. Mr. "I vote present" isn't going to be running Congress or getting in the way of those who do.
Look at the committee chairs. They have the real power and they're not exactly blue dogs!
1964
While in general I agree with Stan's analysis, he is wrong about the Democratic Congress in 1965. In those days, there were a great many Democrats from the South who were far more conservative than any so-called Blue Dog. It is a testament to Johnson's political skill as a former Majority Leader of the Senate that he was able to get their support for his Great Society programs. There is no reason to believe, given his modest record in the Senate, that Obama possesses LBJ's ability to twist arms to get what he wants. It doesn't seem in his nature, either.
The Endless Campaign
Perhaps another constraint--the President-Elect's reelection efforts begin tomorrow.
You are totally right
Those who think that new president will make a magic have a big mistake. It could take years to improve this situation.