The hypocrisy of the 'One-Party Rule' Gambit
The McCain campaign is now warning against "one party rule" if Obama is elected president at at time when there will likely be a Democratic landslide in the House and the Senate.
Well, first of all, having one party in control of the White House and Congress could have the benefit of allowing them to unite to get something practical done about the financial crisis (remember that one?)
Second, the Democrats do not have the supreme court, and there is no early prospect of a firm Democratic majority on it. The conservatives on it are still fairly young and energetic. Thomas and Scalia are very far right, and Alito and Roberts only a little less so. Kennedy is a swing vote but not exactly a liberal. The likely retirements will mostly come from the ranks of liberals, so that Obama and a Democratic congress will only be able to maintain a status quo. It is true that they can stop a far-right putsch on the Court, but that is hardly one party rule.
Moreover. the Republicans did have one-party rule in 2000-2006 and really did have all three branches of government under their control. Can anyone think of any major Republican leader in that period who argued that it was a bad thing and who urged voters to cast ballots for Democrats in order to restore some checks and balances?
On the contrary, the Republicans seriously considered abolishing the Senatorial tradition of requiring 60 for the passage of especially important measures such as confirming justices. They wanted to be more, not less, powerful, to exercise the prerogatives of one-party rule without let or hindrance.
McCain would only have credibility on this issue if he denounced the Republican majority in all three branches of government in 2000=2006.
I don't think he did.
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/28/2008 01:15:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 Comments:
Divided government really is a reach. McCain has given up advocating for himself and is exclusively begging people not to vote for obama. What one party rule does is allows that party to actually govern how it would like to. You get to see who is responsible for what.
Agreed overall, but John McCain was instrumental in fending off the Republican attempt to abolish the filibuster. It doesn't change your argument or conclusions, but give credit where credit is due.
I think your mistake is in assuming McCain wants or has credibility. Credibility is the last thing on his mind.
To correct and extend your observations. Other than four months in the beginning of 2001, the Republicans didn't control the senate for the period of 2001 - 2003.
However, if you go back historically, the previous period when Republicans were in charge of both chambers of Congress and the presidency for at least four consecutive years was 1921 to 1933. This ended in the great Depression.
Before that? 1897 to 1911. This time period included the Panic of 1907, probably the second greatest market panic of the 20th century. (The Great Depression being the first).
Before that? 1869 to 1875. This included the Panic of 1873 which initiated the depression of the 1870s.
At least they are consistent.
Juan--
Greatly enjoy your Informed Comment blog and usually agree with you. However, I think the six years of GOP holding the executive and legislature is a great example of the risks of one party rule.
I've been wondering for the past few days how the Republicans would respond to a Democratic threat of invoking the so-called "nuclear option" as was threatened by Trent Lott et al in 2004-05 when Democrats were using filibuster to block Bush judicial appointments. I'm not advocating the nuclear option (eliminating cloture rules), but I think the howls would be loud.
McCain seems to be admitting defeat already. If RNC were smart, they would make a last ditch effort to defend Senate seats and abandon McCain, who seems to be a lost cause.
Prof. Cole,
This may seem irrelevant to the topic at hand, but would you consider posting on this site some of your essay in the new Hitchens-and-his-critics book? I don't have much patience for Hitchens, even when he's being excoriated, but your essay was singled out recently as fair and balanced in a review on Popmatters. I'm sure your readers would like to see it as well...
Cheers, Ric
Intersting single sided "conversation". It is true that having a Republican go for divided government is funny. It doesn't mean divided government is not a good thing.
I remember a person from the worst state in the union, no not Palin, do some pretty good things because of divided government.
Balanced budget after three veto's. Welfare reform after president Clinton forgot it was a promise during the election.
McCain advisers must be reading the Economist, as this is exactly the strategy suggested in an editorial last week.
Lest we forget what has been said in the course of the past several weeks, here is a selection of Ms Palin's "Greatest Hits":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E&NR=1
BF.
Post a Comment
<< Home