Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
By mw | Related entries in 2008 Election, Bad Decisions, Barack, McCainI returned from a family fishing holiday to learn that we have now adopted corporate welfare, socialism and big government centralized planning as the core drivers for our economy in America. Huh. Apparently, the new American Five Year Economic Plan is to be administered by fiat from an appointed banking Czar. This should work out well.
I also learned that we have selected a new President. Apparently I missed the election, but when Justin says it is over, it is time to accept the inevitable and let the healing begin.
Let us look forward. What can we expect? As ASC points out, some worrywarts are concerned whether an impotent Republican minority will be able to restrain the worst impulses of Democratic One Party Rule. Some insight can be gleaned by looking back at the Democratic minority experience during the recent years of Republican One Party Rule.
My sister (Obama supporter) pointed me to this video clip from “The West Wing.” She was a big fan of the show. I never watched it. In this video I use the West Wing clip to introduce a fundamental concept of divided government, the founding father’s intent to ensure that minority opinion is always represented and a way to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Or rather – it would – if the election had not already been decided.
- Long rant continues with more on the video and supporting links after the fold –
This West Wing episode originally aired on October 30, 2002, a few days before the midterm election in GWB’s first term. The Republicans held majorities in both houses of the legislature and the presidency. They were about to expand their majorities. Liberals and Democrats were justifiably concerned that their minority voice was not being heard. Hence the sentiment expressed by the West Wing writers and delivered convincingly by Martin Sheen as Jed Bartlett. A divided government sounded like a pretty good idea to Democrats at the time. It was. Unfortunately the American electorate disagreed, leading to a continuation of one party rule and more disastrous decisions. Divided Government is still a good idea, but today only Republicans seem to think so. Funny how that works.
So Barack Obama is indeed our new Dear Leader, and songs of praise are being sung across the land. I guess that is appropriate, since his acceptance speech was a litany of old liberal big government bromides. Who better to finish the job that GWB started and march us into the new millennium of a glorious American workers paradise?
It looks like Barack Obama will indeed succeed in uniting Americans of every political stripe the left with the far left and maybe even bring in the moderate left, leaving only fiscal conservatives, libertarians and limited government advocates without a voice or any practical representation in Washington. But that is ok, since we will certainly get new taxes without that representation. Kind of nostalgic.
As we have a new President leading another One Party Government, I thought we should assess where this impending One Party Rule disaster will fit in the spectrum of Great One Party Rule disasters of the past. Since everyone tells me it is a blowout, I will assume my worst fears are to be realized, and the Dems will get to a 60-40 filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a 100 seat majority in the House.
With those assumption, this is where the Obama One Party Rule will rank out of the infamous One Party Rulers of the last 75 years. These charts from US History.com:
|
Years
|
House
|
Senate
|
President | |
|
73rd
|
1933-1935
|
Dem 310
Rep 117 Other 5 |
Dem 60
Rep 35 Other 1 |
F. Roosevelt
(Democrat) |
|
74th
|
1935-1937
|
Dem 319
Rep 103 Other 10 |
Dem 69
Rep 25 Other 2 |
F. Roosevelt
(Democrat) |
|
75th
|
1937-1939
|
Dem 331
Rep 89 Other 13 |
Dem 76
Rep 16 Other 4 |
F. Roosevelt
(Democrat) |
|
76th
|
1939-1941
|
Dem 261
Rep 164 Other 4 |
Dem 69
Rep 23 Other 4 |
F. Roosevelt
(Democrat) |
|
77th
|
1941-1943
|
Dem 268
Rep 162 Other 5 |
Dem 66
Rep 28 Other 2 |
F. Roosevelt
(Democrat) |
|
78th
|
1943-1945
|
Dem 218
Rep 208 Other 4 |
Dem 58
Rep 37 Other 1 |
F. Roosevelt
(Democrat) |
|
79th
|
1945-1947
|
Dem 242
Rep 190 Other 2 |
Dem 56
Rep 38 Other 1 |
F. Roosevelt
Truman (Democrat) |
|
Years
|
House
|
Senate
|
President | |
|
87th
|
1961-1963
|
Dem 263
Rep 174 |
Dem 65
Rep 35 Other 1 |
Kennedy (Democrat) |
|
88th
|
1963-1965
|
Dem 258
Rep 117 |
Dem 67
Rep 33 Other 1 |
Kennedy L. Johnson (Democrat) |
|
89th
|
1965-1967
|
Dem 295
Rep 140 |
Dem 68
Rep 32 Other 1 |
L. Johnson (Democrat) |
|
90th
|
1967-1969
|
Dem 246
Rep 187 |
Dem 64
Rep 36 Other 1 |
L. Johnson (Democrat) |
|
Years
|
House
|
Senate
|
President | |
|
95th
|
1977-1979
|
Dem 292
Rep 143 |
Dem 61
Rep 38 Other 1 |
Carter (Democrat) |
|
96th
|
1979-1981
|
Dem 276
Rep 157 |
Dem 58
Rep 41 Other 1 |
Carter (Democrat) |
|
Years
|
House
|
Senate
|
President | |
|
111th
|
2009-????
|
Dem 268
Rep 167 |
Dem 60
Rep 39 Other 1 |
Obama (Democrat) |
|
Years
|
House
|
Senate
|
President | |
|
107th
|
2001-2003
|
Rep 221
Dem 212 Other 2 |
Dem 50
Rep 49 Other 1 |
G.W. Bush (Republican) |
|
108th
|
2003-2005
|
Rep 228
Dem 204 Other 3 |
Rep 51
Dem 48 Other 1 |
G.W. Bush (Republican) |
|
109th
|
2005-2007
|
Rep 231
Dem 201 Other 3 |
Rep 55
Dem 44 Other 1 |
G.W. Bush (Republican) |
Barack Obama fits somewhere between Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush in these One Party Rule Power Rankings. Somehow that seems appropriate. My casual observation is that the amount of damage done by One Party Rule correlates to two factors – 1) The number of years that Rule is in place, and 2) Whether the party in power has a filibuster proof 60-40 majority. So, there is some cause for hope that the damage can be limited in the next two years. [NOTE - I have not included the first two years of the Clinton and Eisenhower administrations, which both held narrow One Party majorities - they would be ranked 6 and 7 respectively].
What kind of damage are we talking about? Damage to civil and economic liberties. Damage to individual freedom. For illustration, some examples from the administrations listed above, in no particular order:
Internment of Japanese-American citizens, Abuse of IRS and FBI power for political gain (FDR), Massive Expansion of Federal Government (FDR), Confiscation of gold from American citizens, Seizing Coal Mines and other business, NIRA and the National Recovery Administration to impose price controls, set production quotas and implement centralized control of the economy (later ruled unconstitutional), Federal seizure of control of state tideland oil resources, Attempted stacking of the Supreme Court, Broad expansion of Executive War Powers (FDR), Higher Taxes (FDR), Widespread political corruption, Korean War, Abuse of FBI and CIA power for political gain (LBJ). Massive expansion of Federal government size and scope (LBJ). Increasing Federal spending, waste and corruption(LBJ). Broad Expansion of Executive War Power (LBJ). Massive entitlement obligations, Higher Taxes (LBJ) Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution. Expansion of Federal government size and scope (JC), massive increased Federal spending (JC). Increased taxes (JC), Iran Hostage Crisis and failed rescue attempt, Massive increase in Federal spending, waste, and corruption (GWB), Abuse of Justice Department power and FBI (GWB), Massive new entitlements (prescription drugs), giant new government bureaucracy (Homeland Security), acceptance of torturing prisoners and detainees, Surveillance of American citizens, gutting habeas corpus, Corporate welfare, weakening of the Rule of Law, Expansion of executive war powers, Iraq Occupation… sigh… I could go on.
This is, of course, by no means comprehensive. I intended to put together a more complete list organized by the offending One Party Rulers with linked sources for all listed offenses against freedom, but the whole exercise seriously depressed me. Perhaps we’ll revisit this at some unspecified time in the future.
Certainly, there was also much that was good that came out of these administrations. I just think we would have more good, and less bad, if we had not handed over all the keys to one party. But for now, I simply want to welcome our new Democratic Party Overlords.
x-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“
This entry was posted on Friday, October 17th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Bad Decisions, Barack, McCain. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I feel better now.
October 17th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Oh common, we’ve done this before.
Divided government is important but it is not the MOST important issue. In my mind the importance of issues is something like this:
1) Possibility of the current administration prosecuted for their abuses of power. Specifically torture and, to a lesser degree, wiretapping and the attorney firings. (Edge: Obama)
2) VP pick. (Edge: Obama. I love Biden, am terrified of Palin)
3) Iraq and Afghanistan (Slight edge to Obama; they are locked into the strategies but I feel like there might be stronger international support for him)
3) Supreme court being liberal leaning so as to keep Roe v Wade safe and make possible issue 1 (Slight edge to Obama)
4) Divided Government (Edge to McCain)
5) The Economy (Edge to McCain mostly because I think its an issue that can be best dealt with in a divided bickering fashion)
6) Health Care (Edge: Obama)
7) US image world-wide (Edge: Obama)
8) Education (Edge: Obama; I’ve heard enough rants from teachers about how vouchers don’t work)
October 17th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Iran contra wasn’t GWB…
October 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
mw,
Your sarcasm is weak, grasshopper. Because if you weren’t worried about the possibility of a Democratic blowout, you wouldn’t be here screeching about the evils of united government.
In any case, your political junkie emo act is getting old. What if I breathlessly recited all the abuses and trumped up wars that happened under divided government? Off the top of my head, there’s was McCarthyism, Nixon’s abuses and war crimes, the Iran-Contra scandal by hero of the American people Ollie North. Plus recently in the 90s the Clinton impeachment and government shutdown showed us the joys of divided government.
Freedoms erode as governments gobble more power. This truism applies to any kind of government, united or divided.
Instead of turning to divided government like some magical catch-all cure for ALL of America’s ills, why not focus on the preservation of liberties and checking all executives, judges, and legislators no matter which the state of the government? Why not rail against the two party system which forces us into these horrible choices?
Plus, who are you mad at here? Why aren’t you mad at all at the Republicans who sowed this whirlwind? According to you, they had united government and abused their powers horribly, so now we need to be careful and moderate about who we elect? The American people don’t care. They’ve been screwed, and now it’s time for punishment. This isn’t about rewarding the Democrats, or voting for a freshman Senator who may or may not end up being Pelosi’s lapdog. People are punishing the Republicans, and whipping them once wasn’t enough, so they’ll do it again.
October 17th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
It’s a shame that we’ve got a two party system. I can understand the desire for divided government, but at the same time I think it’s a pretty terrible idea to do anything that could in any way be construed as a reward or approval of the way republicans have done things the past 8 years.
The GOP has allowed its worst elements to take it over, and have strayed far from the basic principles that it’s claimed to represent. It needs a serious thrashing at the polls if it’s to have any chance of fixing itself.
We need to completely reject the neocons so hopefully the Republican party can push them out and get its act together. I don’t think the Democrats will be particularly bad, but even if I had some reservations about them, I still think the country would be best served in the long term by sending the GOP back to their rooms to think about what they’ve done for a while.
October 17th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Lit,
Holy crap, I can feel the bitterness coming off my monitor in waves! I agree with everything until the last paragraph, though. My mother used to have an old saying, “Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.” Electing Democrats as a “punishment” to Republicans would be exactly that. Instead, we as an electorate need to take a new approach to all of our elected officials. Rather than supporting a candidate and turning a blind eye to their shortcomings (hence the dichotomy of the low Congressional approval rating yet a high rate of incumbent success), we should be our chosen candidates’ most vocal critics. We need to take back responsibility for who we put in office, and hold them directly, immediately accountable for their actions.
My sense with MW’s post is that that last bit–accountability–will be hard to come by in a unified government with a supermajority. The Democrats will see it as a mandate instead of a grave duty and responsibility. Given the track record of the last 16 years (and longer), I don’t think that we can have much faith that any of the current crop of politicians will behave responsibly without the public breathing down their collective necks.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
You know that little scene in Spiderman, where Uncle Ben’s all like “with great power comes great responsibility…” and all? And that old adage about absolute power corrupting absolutely? I kinda wish all politicians could live by those sentiments. But they can’t because they’re human (… not that I want Skynet…) But I think the one politician that’s surfaced in this generation that comes the closest is BHO. Because one thing I’m sure of, McCain has never heard of Reinhold Niebuhr. To finish off the whole movie-going analogies, in terms of power and corruption, McCain is the Boromir to Obama’s Frodo.
(Next time I comment on anything, I’m gonna try to include a Bill and Ted reference)
October 17th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
@George
Yeah, and we’ll probably be doing it a few more times between now and Nov. 4. After that I’ll get started on the 2010 elections.
I like your stack rank though, but I’d rank the issues differently: My list:
1) Iraq and Afghanistan. – Draw – This is the one issue I said would over-ride the divided government voting heuristic. If it made a difference getting out, I would support Obama. However, events have overtaken the campaigns. the withdrawal timetable is being set by Maliki and the Iraqi government. There will be no difference in the rate of drawdown regardless of who is president. If anything, I actually think it is more likely that we can get out faster with McCain, as he will be in a better position to manage the objections from the ragged right.
2) Divided Government – McCain – No contest. No other way to get there in 2009
3) Supreme court picks – Slight edge to Obama – Agree with you on this one, but do not have a problem with McCain nominating judges. The Dems will have a big majority in the Senate and will control the confirmation. McCain has shown he is willing to stand up to his own party on the issue of judges (Gang of 14), and will nominate based on competence, not ideology. This one is almost a wash.
4) The Economy – McCain – Obama has to raise more taxes than he is claiming now if he wants to deliver on even a small fraction of his promises.
5)Health Care – McCain – Looks like we will socialize it regardless of who becomes president, I have a mild preference for McCains plan.
6) Education – McCain – If you are asking Public school teachers about vouchers, you are asking the wrong people. Ask the parents who have to send their kids to failed public schools.
7) US image world-wide – Obama. Agree, but it is a nice-to-have and not necessary.
8) Possibility of the current administration prosecuted for their abuses of power. – Obama – Agree with you on this one – but – Although this is far more likely with Obama, I just don’t believe for a second that it is going happen. Like he has done all along, Obama will ignore the clamoring from the far left once he is elected no longer needs them. He really has no interest in taking this on. It’ll distract from his other ambitions.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
McCain has sworn that he will appoint judges just like Dubya appointed. The strategy is simple, after all, unless the Democrats get 60 or more Senate seats. Get a nice conservative like Roberts. Coach him intensively on how to lie and tap-dance at the committee hearings. Run a huge PR campaign with all the usual talking points about the right of the sitting president and also threaten to filibuster everything under the sun until the guy is on the bench. Voila, another far right winger on the SC. We can’t afford that kind of effrontery to justice to continue.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
If you think this is only a nice-to-have I question your worldview and evaluations concerning where the world is heading.
October 18th, 2008 at 3:36 am
[...] race and the congressional elections.Considering all the attention in the media and the blogosphere to a seeming Barack Obama November landslide, readers might want to mull over the piece from James Campbell, [...]
October 18th, 2008 at 9:00 am
@Chris – I didn’t say Iran contra was GWB, in fact I didn’t mention it all, because as lit points out – it occurred during the Reagan administration, a period of divided government.
@lit – Lit completely misses the point. I am not saying that abuses of power and corruption do not occur during periods of divided government. Of course they do. There is a significant difference however when these abuses emerge under periods of divided goernment vs. single party rule. The difference is one of degree, and a significant factor in how bad abuse can get is determined by whether the opposition party is able to expose and spotlight the abuses and corruption. Iran-Contra is a perfect case in point. The Iran-Contra story broke in late 1986. In 1987 both houses of Congress (controlled by Democrats) launched televised hearings and investigations into the affair. If we did not have divided government, the executive sponsored Tower Commission might have been the only authoritative investigation and much of the truth of the affair may never have emerged. Similarly, Nixon’s abuses and the evidence for impeachment was revealed during congressional hearings chaired by the opposition party during a period of divided government.
October 18th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Lit had MANY questions:
I don’t consider divided government a “cure-all”. I consider it a tourniquet. I would like to see more choices. I would like to see more focus on the preservation of liberties and candidates that support them. I won’t have any of those options when I step into the voting booth in two weeks.
While we are building a hospital to treat the US Government patient of all its many liberty-deficient ills, the patient is bleeding to death by the side of the road. The first thing to do is control the bleeding. Divided government does that. And in 2008, there is no other practical voting measure we can take that has any chance of accomplishing that objective as effectively as maintaining divided government.
Do I want to punish the Republicans? Yes. I am perfectly happy with he Republicans getting crushed in both houses of congress (but I hope they do not lose the filibuster). At this point, I would be delighted to seem a viable (i.e. not Libertarian Party) limited government, fiscal conservative, liberty focused alternative emerge out of the ashes of the Republican party. In the meantime, I don’t want to see things get worse by giving Democrats all the keys.
Now I have a question for lit and shawn: After having an unfettered One Party Rule Republican government amputate our civil liberty left leg, why do you think it is a cure to have an unfettered One Party Rule Democratic government amputate our economic liberty right leg?
October 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Guess what? It is not just the current crop. It is the nature of the beast which is unchanged from the days of the founders until now. Madison understood the nature of politicians in a position of power:
Hence the need for “ambition to be set against ambition” and the rationale for checks, balance and separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. What Madison and the other founders did not anticipate was the power of political parties to undermine these constitutional constructs under One Party Rule. This defect in the Constitution can be remedied by voters choosing divided government.
I am shocked and saddened.
October 19th, 2008 at 4:23 am
[...] race and the congressional elections.Considering all the attention in the media and the blogosphere to a seeming Barack Obama November landslide, readers might want to mull over the piece from James Campbell, [...]
October 20th, 2008 at 9:02 am
[...] Journal story received a lot of attention across the blogosphere, including links from me and Alan at here at the [...]
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:05 am
One thing everybody seems to be missing. During Bush’s term, the Democrats were never powerless. The lowest seat total during the last eight years for Democrats in the Senate was 44. They ALWAYS had the power of the filibuster, never lost it and Dashele/Reid kept their caucus in line. Have we forgotten the endless filibusters of Bush’s judicial nominees and the gang of 14? That was true bipartisianship. The likely outcome of election 2008 will be a steady stream of approved leftist judges and irresponsible tax increases with no checks and balances whatsoever. Besides it is best to leave some power to the minority party in the Senate if only to credibly have someone to blame when pet legislation or an important liberal judge fails to get approval because the DEMOCRATS failed to come together. You can kick around a lame dog, but not a dead one (apologies to the ASPCA)
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
[...] Unfortunately,as a consequence Obama and the Democrats will claim a mandate, have no meaningful opposition in Washington, and we are on board a high speed, hell bound train to the inevitable bad governance, corruption and abuse of power that always accompanies single party rule. [...]
October 24th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
[...] Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. [...]
October 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
[...] Since one party rule under Obama is a foregone conclusion, perhaps we should better understand the presidency we are buying and take a peek under the Axelrod/Obama secrecy kimono. Lets start with a good hard look at the deep and broad connections between just one major corporation and the Obama campaign. AT&T Reaches out to touch Obama [...]
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
[...] For my predictions, I have decided to put my education into practice. I have decided to forgo any actual analysis, logic, reason, polls or history. Instead I will base my predictions strictly on what MW Hopesâ„¢ will happen. First, MW Hopesâ„¢ the ASC longshot scenario plays out, McCain wins, and we have divided government for the next four years. [...]