Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle seems bent on becoming the Senate Minority Leader and destroying the chances his fellow Democrats have of retaking the House of Representatives this fall. While layoffs accumulate, while the unemployment rate climbs, and with the country mired in recession, Tom Daschle is selfishly playing with people’s lives so he can provide his party with an “issue” for the 2002 elections.
In September, the Bush Administration created an economic stimulus plan designed to help laid-off workers by extending unemployment benefits by another 13 weeks, to help businesses create jobs by giving them incentives to hire and spend more on capital improvements, and to help bolster consumer confidence by putting more money in everyone’s pockets with a lower income tax burden. President Bush sent the plan to Congress on 4 October 2001, and it was quickly passed by the House of Representatives. But over in the Senate, more than three months have passed and Tom Daschle still hasn’t even allowed the President’s plan come up for a vote. During that time, over 943,000 Americans lost their jobs.
Tom Daschle’s recalcitrance might be excusable if he had a competing proposal. Policy differences are understandable in Washington, and economic policy is the primary differentiator between the two parties these days. But Tom Daschle didn’t have a competing plan. He didn’t even try to come up with one. Instead, he sent the Senate home on vacation without voting on any bill that could help alleviate the financial worries facing so many people these days.
Why didn’t Daschle let the Senate vote on President Bush’s stimulus package? Quite simply, because it would have passed. The President’s plan had unanimous support from Republicans, who have 49 votes in the Senate. This past spring, 12 Democratic senators voted for President Bush’s tax cuts. Only 2 of those 12 would have had to vote for the stimulus plan in order for it to become law, and in fact several Democrats did voice support for the President’s plan.
Daschle’s stalling is designed to help the Democrats in the mid-term congressional elections this fall. Mid-term elections are often seen as barometers of the nation’s satisfaction with the sitting president. If the public is dissatisfied, the party that occupies the White House suffers losses. Tom Daschle knows that the current state of the economy makes President Bush and the Republicans vulnerable, and that if the economy gets better before November, the Democrats will have much less of a chance to make solid gains in the mid-term elections. This may explain why Daschle has blocked every attempt to help the economy.
But there is a recent historical example that suggests Tom Daschle has made a grave miscalculation, and that his strategy has a high probability of blowing up in his face come November.
One of the seminal political events in our lifetimes was the government shutdown that occurred in 1995. It gave the self-proclaimed Comeback Kid, Bill Clinton, another opportunity for a comeback, and brought about the end of the Republican Revolution that began with the 1994 mid-term elections.
That year, the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1954. Bill Clinton became despised by many in his own party, blamed for causing the Republican Revolution with his ultra-liberal policies, such as the attempted federal seizure of the entire healthcare industry. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich, riding high as the architect of the Republican Revolution, was enjoying his new job as Speaker of the House.
The government shutdown changed all that, and paved the way for Bill Clinton’s re-election and Newt Gingrich’s downfall. In the fall of 1995, Clinton and Congress were locked in a battle over the taxation and spending priorities contained in the appropriations bills required to keep the government running. Congress kept passing bills and sending them to Clinton, who kept vetoing them, pledging not to sign any bill that did not reflect his priorities.
Because neither side was willing to compromise, the appropriations allocated to the federal government dried up, forcing it to shut down all “non-essential services” until the dispute was resolved. Clinton, using the power of the presidency, was able to pin the blame for the entire mess on Congress. He took advantage of the fact that a savvy president almost always has the upper hand when doing battle with Congress.
A president is much better able to articulate a clear message and vision than dozens of different senators and congressmen. When a president does battle with Congress, one night the news will carry the president’s message and the message of one senator. The next night, it might be the president and a different congressman. As this goes on, the different people arguing against the president’s point—while they may agree among themselves—will emphasize different points and use different phrasing, essentially giving different messages. The public will have a much easier time remembering the points made by the president, because the message will be clear, unified, and unambiguous.
Presidents also have a rhetorical advantage when going up against an amorphous, many-headed adversary like Congress. When a president gives a speech highlighting inaction by Congress, Congress itself won’t be able to respond, making the charges more likely to stick. That’s one reason we often see politicians try to demonize enemies in the abstract—”Congress”, “Big Tobacco”, “the media”, “pharmaceutical companies”—rather than specific examples of them. An abstract enemy can’t defend itself, while a specific one can. Also, people are much more willing to think ill of something they can’t relate to; they can relate to other people, but they can’t relate as easily to institutions. This explains the phenomenon consistently shown by polling data that people hold Congress as a whole in much lower regard than they do their particular congressman. People may think Congress stinks, but rarely do they think their own congressman adds to the stench!
Lastly, there is always a stature gap between the president and any senator or congressman. Presidents meet with kings, queens, and heads-of-state. Congressmen shake hands in malls. Presidents talk about affairs of global significance. Congressmen talk about filling potholes. When the president speaks before Congress, it is a formal affair attended by everyone in government and is broadcast on all the networks. When a congressman speaks before Congress, it is on C-SPAN at 1AM and half the time, the room is empty. Throughout history, there have been very few members of Congress able to compete with the gravitas of the Presidency, and it is this gravitas that adds to a president’s credibility.
For these reasons, Tom Daschle starts off with two strikes against him in his battle against the President Bush. Daschle would be well advised to pay attention to the lessons taught by the government shutdown of 1995. But he may have to learn hard way, assuming President Bush has the stomach to take him to task for it.
Will Daschle’s actions lead the Democrats into the same fate that the Republicans faced in 1995? The elections are eleven months away, an eternity in politics. Daschle may yet find a way to slither out of responsibility for his actions. But if we the people let it be known that Tom Daschle and his Democrats will be held accountable for their obstructionism, then perhaps we can prevent them from using our economic pain for their political gain.
