A year ago I wrote a column called "A Separate Peace," in which I said America's leaders in all areas--government, business, journalism--were in some deep way checking out. They saw bad things coming in the world and for our country, didn't think they could do anything about it, and were instead building a new pool or buying good memories for their kids. Soon after I was invited to address a group of Capitol Hill staffers to talk about the piece. When the meeting was over a woman walked up to me. She spoke of what was going wrong in Washington--the preoccupation with money, a lack of focus on the essentials, and the relentless dynamic of politics: first thing you do when you get power is move to keep power. And after a while you don't have any move but that move.
I said I thought the Republicans would take it on the chin in 2006, and that would force the beginning of wisdom. She surprised me. She was after all a significant staffer giving all her energy to helping advance conservative ideas within the Congress. "Yes," she said, in a quiet, deadly way. As in: I can't wait. As in: We'll get progress only through loss.
That's a year ago, from the Hill.
This is two weeks ago, from a Bush appointee: "I hope they lose the House." And one week ago, from a veteran of two GOP White Houses: "I hope they lose Congress." Republicans this year don't say "we" so much.
What is behind this? A lot of things, but here's a central one: They want to fire Congress because they can't fire President Bush.
Winning through defeat
Friday October 27, 2006
Peggy Noonan today:
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Top Features
- Seven Patron Saints for Healing and Comfort
- A Prayer for Children Going to School
- Accidental Blessings
- Inspiring Barack Obama Inauguration Quotes
- Don t Take Away My Coffee
- Other People s Beds
- We Have It All
- Multifaith Mealtime Prayers
- Man in the Mirror
- John McCain: Constitution Established a 'Christian Nation'
Actually, after several years of complete Republican control, I'm praying for a little gridlock...>
Be careful of what you hope for, you might get it.>
David, I seriously think gridlock wouldn't be a bad thing, if by "gridlock" we mean that the GOP Congress won't rubber-stamp Bush's spending, and vice versa, and if Democratic intransigence forces Bush to change course from the ongoing disaster in Iraq.>
I seriously think gridlock wouldn't be a bad thing, if by "gridlock" we mean that the GOP Congress won't rubber-stamp Bush's spending, and vice versa,
Rod, do you seriously believe the Democrats would slow down Federal spending?!? Think they're going to trim the fat from the No Child Ever Below Average Act? Or get rid of the prescription drug boondoggle?
Here's how it worked with Republicans in the White House and Democrats controlling Congress from 1981 through 1992: Democrats acquiesce in the defense spending proposed by the Administration in exchange for the President's acceptance of massive increases in domestic spending, particularly in entitlement programs.
On domestic programs, George W. Bush spends like a Democrat. I fail to see how that tendency would be curbed by surrounding him with liberal Democrats in Congress.>
I don't think the Democrats will force Bush to change course on Iraq for a couple of reasons. First, I don't think they can agree on an alternative course. It seems clear to me that the Dems, as a party (as opposed to individual democrats) don't have a plan for Iraq so there's no way they can lead or force a differnt approach. Second, as I said earlier, I don't think they want to do anything about Iraq before 08. If the dems win this time around it will be because of dissatisfaction with Bush, primarily because of the war and not because people suddenly believe that they have a better idea. If Iraq isn't an issue in 08 then the dems will have to run on their merits instead of the Presidents lack thereof.
I think the dems will use their control of the legislature to try to embarass Bush and the repubs rather than to pass their own agenda. They will propose legislation knowing, or at least hoping, that it will be defeated or vetoed so they can use it as a political weapon next time around. And they will refuse to pass anything that comes from the Whitehouse. As a result, we'll spend the next two years spinning our wheels while Iraq get worse rather than better, while homeland security is weakened, while illegal immigration is unchecked, and judicial appointments simply ignored. There's, unfortuntely, no way the Dems will work with Bush or the republicans on any of these issues.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.