By Brigitte L. Nacos
With the House of Representatives captured by the Democrats
and the Senate still hanging in the balance, the political landscape in Washington looks this
morning very different than 24 hours earlier. Regardless of the outcome of the
senatorial races in Montana and Virginia, the one-party
rule is over, once the new congress constitutes itself in January. And while
the president maintains a great deal of power—especially with respect to
foreign affairs, national security, and, most importantly, the conduct of the
Iraq war, he cannot ignore the fact that the House (and perhaps the Senate as
well) will provide the checks that were absent in the last several years. The
political system that the founding fathers designed was less one of separated
powers and far more one in which the branches of government, especially the
legislature and the executive, share powers. Whereas the Congress can adopt
laws, the president can veto them; and whereas the president is the chief
executive, the Congress has oversight rights over the executive branch. While such
a power sharing arrangement can easily lead to a collision course between White
House and Capitol Hill, this reality leaves also room for cooperation.
Republican hardliners in the administration and in the two
congressional chambers have run rough-shot over Democrats in the six years of
the George W. Bush presidency. The man who won the Oval office with the promise
to unite Americans became the great divider instead and contributed mightily to
the increased partisan polarization in Washington and around the nation. To expect that the Democratic majority in the House (and
perhaps in the Senate) let bygone be bygone and are now eager to participate in
a love fest in the name of bipartisan cooperation would be unrealistic and
undesirable. Democrats won the majority mostly because enough voters were fed
up with the status quo in Washington and want change. Voters repudiated President Bush’s policies—especially, but
not only, his handling of the Iraq War—and probably his dictatorial
decision-making style as well. If he acted like a king, the election results
make clear that contemporary Americans, like the founding fathers before them,
prefer chief-executives subject to checks and balances to unrestrained
kings.
The new congress must exercise its oversight role and must reclaim its legitimate share of the power in Washington. The Democrats in Congress must expand the plan of action they presented during the campaign and demonstrate that they have the ideas and will and capability to govern. Unless Democrats in Congress push for new approaches to handle the Iraq dilemma and contribute substantially to consider alternative approaches (up front by focusing on the upcoming report by a bi-partisan commission led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton), they would ignore the message that voters sent yesterday.
In her remarks last night, Nancy Pelosi, the designated Speaker of the House, found the right balance between promising energetic efforts in favor of her party’s policy agenda and revival of high ethics standards and civility. President Bush invited Democratic leaders of both congressional chambers to the White House. Perhaps this is a sign that the two parties can work together and solve the big problems of our time—inspite of their rather fundamental differences in many areas.
Comments