Julian E. Zelizer: United government no universal cure
[Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the co-editor of “Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s” (Harvard University Press). He is currently writing a history of national security politics since World War II that will be published by Basic Books.]
The only thing that makes the brutal presidential nomination battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton tolerable for most Democrats is the hope for a big payoff in November: united government, which would occur if the eventual party nominee wins the general election and, as seems likely, House and Senate Democrats retain and expand their majorities.
But Democrats should not expect too much if everything works out in the election. United government is not what it used to be when, in the 1930s and 1960s, Democrats used their control of the White House and Congress to pass through historic New Deal and Great Society legislation.
The differences were evident by the 1990s. In 1993 and 1994, President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress certainly enjoyed a key victory when they passed a deficit reduction bill that raised taxes, without any Republican support. The passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement was more of a mixed bag, given that numerous Democrats opposed the measure because they feared its negative impact on workers.
Overall, though, Democratic victories were limited. The most important item on President Clinton’s agenda was a national health care program. Clinton campaigned on the issue, and Democrats promised to deliver this benefit to more than 40 million uninsured Americans. Republicans opposed Clinton’s legislation as another example of Big Government liberalism. They used the power of the congressional minority — allying with influential groups in the health industry — to stop passage of the bill. Making matters worse, Republicans capitalized on the defeat to retake control of Congress.
Republicans were more successful after 2002, backing a second Bush tax cut in 2003 and many other administration proposals. Yet united government, as well as a historic and devastating terrorist attack, did not give a two-term Republican president and Republican Congress a free hand. Democrats prevented progress on most Republican efforts to cut the size of government. Social Security remained intact, Medicare grew to include an expensive prescription drug benefit and federal spending skyrocketed. Ironically, the biggest changes that Bush made to domestic policies in this period involved expansions of government — with health care and homeland defense — rather than contractions.
Republicans were even constrained with the war on terrorism. While the war in Iraq constituted a major foreign intervention, Republicans did not fulfill the militaristic Bush Doctrine elsewhere in the world.
Rogue nations such as North Korea flouted nuclear arms agreements. The administration relied more frequently on diplomacy than on war in the second term. The war in Afghanistan withered as the notorious Taliban regrouped. In Iraq, the president did not possess unlimited manpower for postwar reconstruction and, by 2005, faced a restive Congress that undermined his public standing. Domestic security programs came under fire, as well; the administration backed down from a deal for providing port security, and it was forced to start reconfiguring several programs.
So what’s the problem? For one thing, decision making gradually moved from committee chairmen to congressional leaders. Voters changed, as well. As Southerners became Republican and the Northeastern liberal Republicans vanished, fewer centrists were elected in either party who could cut bipartisan deals. Gerrymandered districts meant that House members would focus on ideologically rigid party activists who tended to come out in the primaries. ...
[Click on the SOURCE link to continue reading this article.]
Read entire article at Politico.com
The only thing that makes the brutal presidential nomination battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton tolerable for most Democrats is the hope for a big payoff in November: united government, which would occur if the eventual party nominee wins the general election and, as seems likely, House and Senate Democrats retain and expand their majorities.
But Democrats should not expect too much if everything works out in the election. United government is not what it used to be when, in the 1930s and 1960s, Democrats used their control of the White House and Congress to pass through historic New Deal and Great Society legislation.
The differences were evident by the 1990s. In 1993 and 1994, President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress certainly enjoyed a key victory when they passed a deficit reduction bill that raised taxes, without any Republican support. The passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement was more of a mixed bag, given that numerous Democrats opposed the measure because they feared its negative impact on workers.
Overall, though, Democratic victories were limited. The most important item on President Clinton’s agenda was a national health care program. Clinton campaigned on the issue, and Democrats promised to deliver this benefit to more than 40 million uninsured Americans. Republicans opposed Clinton’s legislation as another example of Big Government liberalism. They used the power of the congressional minority — allying with influential groups in the health industry — to stop passage of the bill. Making matters worse, Republicans capitalized on the defeat to retake control of Congress.
Republicans were more successful after 2002, backing a second Bush tax cut in 2003 and many other administration proposals. Yet united government, as well as a historic and devastating terrorist attack, did not give a two-term Republican president and Republican Congress a free hand. Democrats prevented progress on most Republican efforts to cut the size of government. Social Security remained intact, Medicare grew to include an expensive prescription drug benefit and federal spending skyrocketed. Ironically, the biggest changes that Bush made to domestic policies in this period involved expansions of government — with health care and homeland defense — rather than contractions.
Republicans were even constrained with the war on terrorism. While the war in Iraq constituted a major foreign intervention, Republicans did not fulfill the militaristic Bush Doctrine elsewhere in the world.
Rogue nations such as North Korea flouted nuclear arms agreements. The administration relied more frequently on diplomacy than on war in the second term. The war in Afghanistan withered as the notorious Taliban regrouped. In Iraq, the president did not possess unlimited manpower for postwar reconstruction and, by 2005, faced a restive Congress that undermined his public standing. Domestic security programs came under fire, as well; the administration backed down from a deal for providing port security, and it was forced to start reconfiguring several programs.
So what’s the problem? For one thing, decision making gradually moved from committee chairmen to congressional leaders. Voters changed, as well. As Southerners became Republican and the Northeastern liberal Republicans vanished, fewer centrists were elected in either party who could cut bipartisan deals. Gerrymandered districts meant that House members would focus on ideologically rigid party activists who tended to come out in the primaries. ...
[Click on the SOURCE link to continue reading this article.]