In the post below this one, Matt covers how almost every legislative issue Democrats seek to cover in the first "100 hours" in extremely popular with the public. I think he draws the right conclusion: that pathetic Republican calls for "bi-partisanship" elide how at first Democrats in Congress will focus on issues where the public overwhelmingly supports Democrats in Congress. Given this, all that is left for Republicans to whine about is the vague lack of "bi-partisanship" that the public vaguely desires (and which far less vaguely self-incriminates implicates the outgoing Republican majority). They can't actually describe what sort of bi-partisanship they would like on these early legislative proposals, because the public is overwhelmingly opposed to their positions on things like the minimum wage, stem cell research, Social Security, and Iraq oversight.
However, despite massive public support for the Democratic "100 hours," there is still something about it that worries me. During the pre-Connecticut primary phase of the 2006 campaign, most of the Democratic leadership was unwilling to confront Republicans on any issue where there was not a super-majority, or nearly a super-majority, of the electorate in opposition to Republican policy when it came to that issue. From February until July, the type of "confrontation" the cautious Democratic leadership sought out was exemplified by the Dubai ports deal, where about 75-80% of the country was in opposition to Republican policy. Man, did our leadership in both branches of Congress ever hit that one hard, even if it wasn't the most important issue around. This extraordinary trepidation on the party of Democrats led to absurd situations like Senator Feingold demanding censure and hearings over warrant-less wiretapping revelations, while many of his colleagues demanded a return to talking about the issues that I guess they felt really impacted Americans, like the Dubai ports deal.
When I look at
the legislative topics of the first 100 hours, I see a laundry list of Dubai ports deals. All of these proposals--ethics reform, raising the minimum wage, stem cell research--are very popular, but they still tend to cut around the edges of the most important issue of our time. Certainly, raising the minimum wage is a lot more important than the Dubai port deal was, as is pretty much everything on the early Democratic agenda. However, after winning an election largely on promising change to, or at least oversight of, Iraq policy, there isn't a single thing in the first 100 hours that deals with Iraq. There doesn't even seem to be a push to immediately set up an oversight committee on any subject related to Iraq. Like national Democratic campaigns pre-Lamont, it is pretty much Iraq-free, and we have re-entered the Dubai Port deal press conference zone again.
Democrats cannot hope to govern like this indefinitely. Eventually, we will run out of Dubai port deals. Further, we will also lose our newfound ability to steer the national political conversation if we elide the big issues of the day--especially while Bush continues to talk Iraq. Still further, it will reify the negative national image of Democrats as gutless wonders. Worst of all, voters will feel betrayed by the new Congress, in that we failed to challenge, expose, stop or alter our course in Iraq in any significant way.
At some point very soon, we need to move beyond small, popular legislation and into a direct confrontational mode with Bush and congressional Republicans on the most important issue of the day: Iraq. Failure to do so will quickly result in
our current 60% approval ratings falling into the same toilet Republicans found themselves in during the past two years. Not everything can be a Dubai port deal--eventually, it is going to have to get rough. While moving on quickly on Iraq may not be the first instinct of the risk-averse Democratic leadership, failure to promptly provide accountability and a challenge to Bush when it comes to Mess-o-potamia is a far shakier strategic position than to not do so.
