The general election of 2007 is history. The Republicans lost in
a landslide. The full meaning of the election will become clearer
with the passage of time and a more thorough parsing of the
results. Here are some early comments on the results.
The general election of 2007 is history. The Republicans lost in a landslide. The full meaning of the election will become clearer with the passage of time and a more thorough parsing of the results. Here are some early comments on the results.
In the spring of this year, I personally wrote and mailed letters to each of the 55 Republican Senators expressing my views on a particular issue. This cost our family $21.45 in postage. No letters were returned for incorrect addresses. We did not receive a single reply from any Senator to whom we had mailed a letter.
In 399 B.C., the Athenian, Socrates, calmly accepted the verdict of his fellow citizens that he should cause his own death by drinking the hemlock. He did so and became an icon for acceptance and adherence to democratic rule in the Greek Republic.
A great deal of Republican pre-election resources went into convincing the conservative Republican base that they must get out and vote because if they do not the horror of a Democrat-controlled Congress would descend upon the Republic. In other words the Republicans, the party of power and authority for six years, asked us not to evaluate them on their incumbent record, but rather on the record of – Nancy Pelosi! And not even on her record, but on her potential record. Responsible voting requires that citizens evaluate politicians first and foremost, on their record in office. Conservatives looked at the record of President Bush and the Congressional Republicans and found it to be unacceptable. The future is uncertain; why should voting decisions be made on the basis of what might happen rather than on the certainty of what has actually happened?
Besides, I would ask the Republican operatives that had such harsh words for conservatives, how exactly does a voter get the message to an office holder that his performance is unacceptable, if not at the ballot box? In the end it is the only venue that matters. Had the same Republican team been returned to power, does anyone honestly think anything would have changed in the next two years?
The seeds of Republican ineffectiveness were sowed early in the Bush administration’s first term. The no-child-left behind education bill, the Medicare drug bill, and the 2002 farm subsidy bill were passed by the Republican Congress and signed by President Bush. Each of these bills were budget busters. None had to do with security from terrorists. If conservatives believe in anything, it is smaller government and fiscal restraint. The $180B farm subsidy bill of 2002 was a particularly egregious budget-buster. It did little to help small farmers. The top 10 percent of farms received 65 percent or the subsidy, while the bottom 80 percent of farmers – mostly small family farms – received just 19 percent of the subsidy. Included in the 10 largest recipients of subsidies was a famous farmer – the John Hancock Insurance Corporation – a Fortune 500 company which received $2.3M in 2002. Mr. Bush, Mr. Rove, why did you propose these bills in the first place? Congressman Hastert, Senator Frist, Senator Lott, why didn’t you oppose these bills as they made their way through Congress? A reluctant Republican Congress held their nose and went along knowing the Republican folks at home opposed big government spending.
These three programs took away the Bush administration’s credibility with regard to fiscal restraint – a Republican issue for more than 100 years – and gave it to the Democrats. The damage was done. Thereafter the Republicans were never able to form a Legislative team with the ability to be consistently effective. Overall ineffectiveness in the end became an important voting issue, in my analysis. And the fiasco of the budget busting bills set the stage for what followed.
It is impossible, not to notice the contrast between the Republican response to the loss in the 2006 election, and the Democratic response to losses in both 2002 and 2004. Although, many important races involved razor-thin Democrat majorities, the GOP did not raise the voter fraud issue and conceded graciously. Democrat partisans on the other hand seem never to stop complaining and threatening lawsuits over election results, no matter the margins. Republicans it would seem actually believe in the fairness and integrity of the system of majority rule, as did Socrates. Many Democrats seem to me to believe primarily in their right to run the country, whether or not the voters out there actually vote them into power.
There is much to be done within the Republican Party. Good luck to the new Congressional Democrats.
Al Kelsch is a Hollister resident who writes a weekly column for the Free Lance. Contact him at oi*****@ya***.com
