NEW YORK - The latest Gallup Poll suggests that the Democrats will take control
of the US House of Representatives on Tuesday, and possibly even the Senate.
The non-partisan Cook report suggests 30 to 36 Democratic gains in the House,
four to seven in the Senate and six to eight governorships.
But there is a lot of small print attached to the prognosis, and even more to
prognostication about its effects on the world.
Among the millions of voters, many will be deterred. The Republican Party not
only has a finely honed machine for getting
out what it considers its own natural voters, stock-owing,
sport-utility-vehicle-driving, gun-owning white Christians who shop at
Wal-Mart, it also has a viciously effective machine for driving away potential
Democratic voters, Latins (except Cubans in Florida) and blacks, and finding
ways to prevent them from voting.
The mechanics of voter suppression, purging voter rolls, moving and
under-equipping opposition-area polling booths, challenging voters from the
wrong racial group and insisting on identification despite court orders, make
US democracy seem very fragile. There are times when one wonders whether
victory should be handed to the side with the most money, or the most lawyers.
Although it would be a foolhardy Democrat who started the victory party before
the last vote was tabulated, the party's success in the elections would be even
more of an achievement in the face of Republican tactics that, to be fair, are
refined versions of what the old southern Democrats practiced for more than a
century.
Balancing the dubious gains of the impending execution of Saddam Hussein are
the oozing mudslides of scandal over the Republican Party, both financial and
sexual, finalized this weekend when Ted Haggard, the former president of the
evangelicals who had called frequently and loudly for anti-gay legislation, was
outed as a frequenter of a male prostitute. This may inhibit the enthusiasm of
the normally enthusiastic evangelicals for voting. But what may matter is who
does the counting, not who does the voting.
So what will change? It will not only be the federal legislature that is
changing hands. The signs are that the Democrats could gain control of many
state capitols. As many as six to eight governorships could go to the
Democrats, which could be deeply significant in the long run.
It has been Republican local government that has gerrymandered congressional
seats and practiced voter suppression. The question is whether the loose and
fissiparous Democrats have the spine and the discipline to emulate what their
predecessors did in office, to re-district Republican seats out of existence
and practice voter encouragement to cement their power.
Nationally (and thus internationally), will there be a change in foreign policy
as a result of the change in the complexion of Congress? The answer has to be
that in the main drift of events, probably not as much as many people may hope.
First, White House sources are busily leaking that, in between claiming
complete confidence that they will maintain control, they will fight "to the
death" any attempt by mere elected legislators to frustrate presidential will.
Indeed, even with his own party in control, President George W Bush has
unconstitutionally usurped authority to declare, even as he signs a bill, that
he will not implement it.
The Senate, which may well stay in nominal Republican hands, has recently been
much saner than its Republican majority would suggest - and it is the Senate
that has more power over foreign affairs, on treaty ratification, confirming
ambassadorial appointments and so on. Even with a nominal Republican majority,
it has not yet confirmed John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, for
example.
The more reality-challenged Republicans have tended to be in the House, and may
well lose there. But sadly, on foreign affairs, their Democratic opponents have
often gone along with xenophobia. On the key issue of the Iraq war, there is
certainly unlikely to be a majority for an immediate withdrawal. The House,
both sides, tends to do what the pro-Israel lobby wants, up to a point.
The clear test will be whether that point marks a spot before military action
is taken against Iran, or even North Korea. Most Democrats know that the voters
who put them into power would not be happy with this, so it may well be that
the chances of war are reduced.
Much of the difference will be in degrees rather than acute changes of
direction. The Democrats will be less likely to think that China trade is
necessarily good for their voters, but that did not stop Bill Clinton being a
major proponent of free trade. With an ear to Israel, the Democrats have not
always had much time for the United Nations, but even if their views are often
every bit as America-first as their rivals, they do tend to be more aware that
the rest of the world does not always share that position and see that
water-boarding, whether on a national or personal level, is not always the best
way to win people or countries around.
That may dampen some of the wilder plans of the White House, but it is
difficult to see any striking initiatives coming from Congress, and even more
difficult to see them succeeding.
However, even dampening wilder plans will be a major step forward, and it will
be interesting to see the dynamics of the relationships within the
administration if Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were to use the leverage
of Congress to get her allegedly more pragmatic way in the cabinet. Will
tension with Iran and North Korea be relaxed? Possibly. But once again, it will
not be a major change in policy, more a change of emphasis, with the
interventionists in the White House continually pushing to get their way and
create facts that would demand Democrat support.
In the end, as Franklin D Roosevelt showed in action and Bill Clinton showed in
inaction, the big difference is what a determined president in the White House
can push through. Whatever one thinks of the effect or the intent, Bush,
scorned and despised by many, has introduced tremendous and unprecedented
changes in US government and society. Two more years could still see a lot of
changes, but perhaps fewer if his congressional base is captured.
Ian Williams is author of Deserter: Bush's War on Military
Families, Veterans and His Past, Nation Books, New York.
