Gridlock by Design

I don't understand why everyone seems surprised that Bush got 5 1/2 years into his term before he had to use a veto. For the bulk of that time, his party had control of both houses of congress. Also, the Republican party is one of the most lock-step parties ever. Sure there are a couple of moderates left (Snowe, Collins, Chafee) but lets face it, the Bush administration essentially had direct control over congress since 9/11. How could anything he didn't approve even get to his desk to veto?

Sure there have been big pork-filled spending bills he could have turned back to make a point. But most of these were backed by the more powerful members of the Republican leadership. Did anyone really think Bush would kill those bills? What else was he going to veto? The aweful energy bill? Cheney and company wrote it. The misguided bill to keep Teri Schiavo alive? He orchestrated it. Just about everything to come out of congress for the past 5 years was either directly proposed by Bush or at least ok'd in advance.

Which brings me to my point. Our government was meant to be gridlocked. The founding fathers designed checks and balances not only to keep the government honest but to prevent it from doing too much, too quickly. They felt that government by compromise would prevent the worst abuses of power. With three branches of government and two houses of Congress, there should be a reasonable expectation that some arm of government will be held by an opposition party who will keep the other party in check. That system has broken down with only the judicial acting as any kind of check on the powers of the Republican party and that is shaky.

I think the best overall national strategy the Democrats could use would be to make each and every congressional race a referendum on, not just Bush's performance, but the overall need for government, any government, to be checked by a viable opposition. It is never fun and always risky to run on a platform of 'the other guy must go'. Of course the Democrats need to stand for something on their own and not just be the other party.

But I think an argument could be made that these platforms should be developed locally instead of at the national committee level. Let the individual candidates forge the way they think best. Let them follow their conscience and concentrate on the local issues. Let the Democratic party be the party of personal conviction and not blind-eyes and rubber stamps.

Meanwhile, the national committee should be making clear the only way to check the authoritarian power of the government is to win at least one house of Congress. Americans are not confortable with an unconstrained government. They will understand, if reminded enough, that this is the only solution to our current problems.

The Democrats will need to be careful not to push this to the extreme or let Rove frame their position is the most extreme sense. Talk of impeachment or prosecuting the Bush administration for their many crimes needs to be kept to a minimum. I love what Russ Feingold was trying to do when he pushed to censior the president, but the Democrats were probably correct that it was a political loser and put them in a bad position. Witch hunts are not the way to go here. But sensible oversight must be restored and winning congress is the only sure way to achieve it.