The Elections Outcome

Those expecting the Democrats elected on November 7 to revert to type by enacting a number of bills favored by the party's left wing are missing several key points in my estimation:

First, even if you assume that very liberal bills could pass both houses of Congress, they cannot be enacted without the President's signature. It's quite likely, I believe, that the minimum wage will be increased and that Bush will accept it. It's also possible that comprehensive immigration legislation incorporating major elements of last year's Senate bill can now pass the House, and Bush would sign that. But if you are expecting repeal of the Bush tax cuts, enactment of "fair trade" legislation favored by people like Sen. Byron Dorgan, forget about it. Such bills would be vetoed and the votes to override a Presidential veto are not there.

Second, the next two years will be a rehearsal for the Presidential election of 2008. The Democrats desperately want to recapture the White House, and they know that a strictly liberal social agenda is unlikely to win the support of many who voted Democratic in 2006. Nancy Pelosi may be, as her detractors claim, "a San Francisco liberal," but she's also a political realist and I expect her to be a lot more pragmatic as Speaker than she was when she was representing her San Francisco constituents.

Third, many of the freshmen Democrats in both houses are moderates, only slightly to the left of center on key issues. The new House members are already thinking about reelection in 2008. They occupy marginal districts, and they understand very well that voting for "liberal" legislation may not bring success.

Finally -- and perhaps most significantly -- despite the "100 hours" promise of the new House leadership, the central issues for the next two years are Iraq and terrorism. Democrats will need to concentrate on pursuing a strategy that will fulfill their promise to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq without undermining the credibility they have only recently won as a party that can be trusted on security issues. Similarly, they will have to show that they are just as determined to thwart the terrorist threat as George Bush and the Republicans. If Democrats want to rebalance homeland security measures with concerns about privacy and civil liberties, they will have to approach these matters with great care. Major changes in the PATRIOT Act are not in the cards. There would not be a majority for such changes in the Senate (even among Democrats), and -- though one will need to learn more about how newcomers in the House view these issues -- you can be sure that John Conyers will have difficulty assembling majority support for the kinds of changes in this and other laws that he might want to see enacted.

I do expect to see some move to ease the tax burden on the middle class, including changes in provisions of the alternative minimum tax as they currently exist. But, whatever you think about Charley Rangel, the incoming
chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, he is no bomb-thrower. He is a practical-minded politician who will build a reputation for adopting sensible pieces of legislation that can pass the House and be signed into law.

If there is to be a "liberal" or "progressive" restoration as some profoundly hope, it will not occur until after the next election and only then if the Democrats take the White House, strengthen their hold on the Senate and maintain a considerable margin in the House.