BY NOW, it has become clear thatRepublicans are going to lose a significant number of seats in Congress. Predictions have ranged from 12 to 25 seats in the House and two to six seats in the Senate. Less obvious, though, even to longtime political observers, are the factors behind the expected congressional shift. Liberals -- and even many moderates -- believe that voters are turning against Republicans due to discontent with President Bush's mistakes in Iraq. According to many conservatives, on the other hand, normally reliable Republican voters are disgusted with the general failure of the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress to pass significant conservative reforms. Although both of these views contain a bit of the truth, they fail to explain the true significance of the 2006 elections.
Lost in all the hype of a possible Democratic takeover is the fact that it would be historically unremarkable. At work is a political phenomenon Politics Prof. Larry Sabato calls the "six-year itch." It nearly almost happens that, in the sixth year of a presidency, the president's party loses seats in Congress. Since World War II, in the sixth year of a president's time in office his party has lost an average of 29 House seats and six Senate seats. Most forecasters would be surprised if the Democrats picked up that many seats this year.
The old saying "all politics is local" is a generalization, but it touches on the truth. Many of the Republicans most likely to lose reelection cannot blame Iraq or the Bush administration for their problems. Congressmen Bob Ney, R-Ohio, Tom DeLay, R-Texas, Don Sherwood, R-Pa., Mark Foley, R-Fla., and Curt Weldon, R-Pa., are all involved in scandals of their own making. Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, is being dragged down by a corruption scandal enveloping the entire Republican Party of Ohio. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., is in danger because of his ties to the convicted felon and ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Virginia's George Allen, of course, has only himself to blame. He has scored a hat trick of racial insensitivities, with the "macaca" incident, his mother's Jewish ancestry and allegations that he used the n-word.
In short, then, a large share of Republican misfortunes comes not from specific mistakes of the Bush administration, but from localized issues and the sixth-year itch. Nevertheless, even this fairly ordinary election could have a significant impact on our country. This election is not, as Democrats keep trying to define it, a referendum on Bush or the Republican party. Voters should treat it as what it really is: a choice between a Congress run by Republicans and a Congress run by Democrats. Neither choice is perfect, but the Democrats are a far worse option.
Turning the government over to the myopic Democratic Party would be a huge mistake. This is not the party of Bill Clinton or Mark Warner. This is the party of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It certainly isn't the party of Joe Lieberman, a distinguished Democratic senator who lost his primary bid solely on account of his support of the war in Iraq.
Last week, Jonathan Chait, editor of the liberal magazine The New Republic, laid out his interpretation of the Democratic agenda. This agenda, he explained on the magazine's Web site, includes such things as raising the minimum wage, spending more federal money on embryonic stem cell research and taking steps to reduce the budget deficit. Some of these ideas do deserve consideration, but they're definitely secondary issues.
On the issue of national security, however, the only proposal Chait could cite was to "enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission." Five years after Sept. 11, most Democrats are still clueless about national security. In a campaign speech for a candidate from Texas, President Bush summarized their philosophy as "just say no." The Democrats have opposed the Patriot Act, the detention of terrorists and the wiretapping of terrorist phone conversations. After three years and 3,000 deaths, they are ready to abandon Iraq to the chaos of terrorists and death squads.
Voters need to approach this election with America's future in mind. Republicans have made their mistakes, but on the whole have done a solid job over the past six years. The economy is thriving and our country has suffered no more terrorist attacks. Both of these accomplishments would be placed in great danger under a Democratic Congress.
Mainstream Democrats are wrong on almost every issue. They think raising taxes and the minimum wage and isolationist trade restrictions are the best policies for America's economy. Democrats prefer toothless diplomacy and retreat to a proactive American foreign policy. At home, they are more concerned with the civil rights of terrorists than preventing more attacks.Democrats have refused to support the solutions necessary for American success in the post 9/11 world, and voters should refuse to allow these short-sighted politicians to direct our Congress.
Stephen Parsley's column usually appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at sparsley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 5 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 5 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
