« Death of a President | Main | Comments »

October 24, 2006

Some Suggestions for Victorious Democrats

Yes, I'm early with this one, and I may well be proved wrong. But there's a pretty good chance that Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House next January, and a passel of Democrats will take their seats as committee chaircreatures, eager to exercise some power after twelve years in the wilderness. I don't expect them to listen to me for a second, but speaking as just one independent who would really like to see one party he can support, I offer a few thoughts on how they could earn my support after the current election. (I have already decided to vote Democratic in November, simply to break the Republicans' hold on power.)

The Bush administration has managed to last almost six years with minimal congressional oversight, with predictable results. The last thing I want to see is the Democrats shying away from the chance to start investigating the administration to make sure that things are being done properly. However, what I do not want to see is Star Chamber-style investigations in which the outcome is already known and the hearings are intended as show trials. There is little that could turn me off the Democratic Party more quickly than the sight of Democrats using their offices to carry out vendettas against the Republicans. Yes, I know that the Republicans treated the Democrats shabbily during their tenure; that hardly means that I'm going to enjoy watching any more when the tables are turned. And when it comes to issues like our intelligence programs and the war, I'm a lot more interested in finding ways to improve than in scapegoating people for political advantage. That doesn't mean that people who committed wrongdoing shouldn't pay a price, but it does mean that I'm looking for something more than that.

It is an article of faith on the left (with good reason) that the Bush administration has abused its powers. Those on the left may feel little qualm about simply crushing the administration for its crimes as quickly as possible. I'd like to put in a request, however, that the Democrats conduct their investigations with an eye to granting the administration every opportunity to demonstrate its innocence. My reasoning behind this is simple: if the Democrats just hold the typical congressional hearings where they only call witnesses who they know will say what they want to hear, they're doing little more than wasting my time and undermining their credibility. Congress has a responsibility to oversee the executive. That means more than just hobbling it because Congress doesn't like it; that means uncovering the facts and acting accordingly. Congressional panels that ask call witnesses from all sides and that ask hard questions of all witnesses are more likely to uncover the issues that led to the problems we now see in Iraq. It's easy to say that the Bush administration screwed up, but Congress would do a great service if it were better able to identify what mistakes were made and, if possible, why they were made.

Further, by calling witnesses from all points of the compass, Congress would make its conclusions that much more ironclad and therefore accepted by Americans. If Congress just calls a group of witnesses that spout a few talking points, the polarization that grips America will ensure that most people on the right will write off the hearings as nothing but political theater. If, on the other hand, Congress takes its time, asks the right questions, leaves no stone unturned, and produces a report that is exhaustively-sourced and that has given the other side every opportunity to present matters in mitigation or rebuttal, it is far more likely to be generally accepted. This is not to say everyone will accept it; partisanship will still ensure that a sizeable fraction of people will write off any product that indicts the administration (literally or figuratively). But people like yours truly are a lot more likely to pay attention to congressional hearings that are clearly aimed at uncovering the truth than to silly theater like that offered by John Conyers a few years back.

The Democrats would also pick up a lot of support were they to take on the practice of tying unrelated issues into single bills to force people to consider disparate issues as one. Senator Frist's recent tying of an internet gambling ban to a port security bill. The maneuver ensured the internet gambling ban became law, not because of the merits of banning internet gambling, but because few Senators wanted to have ads drawn up against them damning them for having voted against port security (never mind whether that bill was any good; in today's political environment, all that matters is that the bill was about 'security.'). That may be good politics, but it's lousy law, and it's not the right way to do business. I don't really expect to see it changed under a Democratic House, but if a Speaker Pelosi were to do such a thing, it would certainly cause me to sit up and take notice.

At a minimum, the Democrats could take on pork. It's a tiny fraction of the budget, granted, but it's a huge factor in corruption in Washington. Companies donate a few thousand or million dollars to the right congressman, and in return they get a multi-million dollar contract from the federal government, often to build things of questionable utility like Alaska's infamous bridge to nowhere. Cutting that kind of thing out of the budget wouldn't solve the problem of money in politics, but it would at least eliminate one particularly egregious form of corruption.

Last but not least, it will be interesting to see if the Democrats repudiate or embrace the tactics the Republicans have used over the past twelve years. Will Speaker Pelosi deal strictly with her own party as Speaker Hastert has, or will she attempt to reach across party lines? Will we see more shenanigans like the passage of the Medicare drug bill in which the floor remains open until enough votes can be coerced to pass the measure? The Democrats have rightly decried the treatment they've received from the Republican majority, but it will be interesting to see whether or not they can bring themselves to set that aside when they have the opportunity for payback.

As I noted at the beginning, this all may be premature. But I continue to hope that the Democrats can at least take back one part of the government from the Republicans, as one party rule is bad regardless of the party in question. I am less hopeful the Democrats will actually demonstrate that they're any better when they're in power than the Republicans are, but I hold out a thin thread of hope that they may just prove me wrong.