Ashton Ellis
Staff Writer
With congressional races around the United States heating up as we head toward Election Day on Nov. 7th, it is an appropriate time to ask, “What would a Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives do with power?” The short answers, their length matched only by their vagueness, include, hold the Bush Administration accountable, get out of Iraq and fix the budget.
In a world without context, these might be considered laudable goals. Looking at the Democratic Congressional platform, however, it becomes clear that a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives would likely waste time on investigations and increasing taxes instead of enacting real policy solutions. This would rob the American people of a true alternative to the Republican Party.
According to housedemocrats.gov, holding the Bush Administration accountable for failures in Iraq hinges on holding investigations and oversight hearings to uncover how the American people were misled into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. One can easily imagine congressional chairmen demanding appearances from headline-grabbing personalities like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his former deputy Paul Wolfowitz or former Secretary of State Colin Powell. The intent would be to humiliate, not illuminate. The problem with such a sideshow is that congressional hearings usually accomplish little more than giving no-name congressmen a few days of national notoriety. (Remember the ill-fated steroids in baseball hearings?) If Democrats really want to show leadership, they will curtail the impulse to embarrass their opponents, and instead educate their fellow Americans on the sobering options facing our mission in Iraq.
Unfortunately, Democratic leaders are calling the war in Iraq a lost cause and lobbying to leave as soon as the now falling gas prices make it feasible to helicopter soldiers home. Rejecting Bush’s open-ended commitment to stabilizing Iraq, Democrats advocate redeploying troops to places like South Korea and Japan where a now-nuclear North Korea threatens to undermine regional, and perhaps international, security. While this kind of tactical troop movement may satisfy voters who would rather deter than defend, it misses the broader strategic importance of maintaining a military presence in Iraq. If East Asia needs more American troops because North Korea now has the bomb, shouldn’t Iraq get troops before Iran goes nuclear too? It would seem that deterrence is easier to achieve before a nation gets nuclear weapons, not after.
And then there’s the homeland. If Democrats take over the House, one of the first bills filed may include a proposal to change the nation’s motto to, “In the Feds we trust.” From equipping first responders and funneling more money into No Child Left Behind education funding to increasing subsidies for “affordable” prescription drugs and renewable energy, Democrats are once again attempting to make the federal government accountable for responsibilities that are better left to the states. The problem with this type of policy is that it banks on Americans’ willingness to pay more taxes to fund an even larger federal government. If Hurricane Katrina, Terri Schiavo and the fluctuating price of gasoline taught us anything it is that not every problem requires, or even benefits from, a federal solution.
If the Democratic Party takes control of the U.S. House of Representatives, several things are likely to change in our nation’s capitol. Bipartisanship will become increasingly archaic, the Bush Administration will be under congressional siege, and the chamber charged with initiating the taxation process will find new ways to abuse the privilege. In the closing weeks of this election season, here’s hoping the Democratic Party can make a better case for why its version of the future is superior to the Republicans.
10-26-2006