« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »
November 24, 2006
Fresh start
In the midterm elections on November 7, Democrats secured majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. These majorities in the legislature, however, will be balanced for the next two years (at least) by continued Republican control of the executive branch. In such a divided government, the relevant question is not just what Democrats hope to accomplish with their legislative majorities. Rather, their tactics as part of a divided government are also open to debate. Will Democrats attempt to achieve consensus with their Republican colleagues in Congress and secure easy approval for their legislation from President Bush? Or will they prove more confrontational and attempt to force divisive proposals onto the President’s desk? The answers to these questions are far from certain, but one thing is clear: The issues that have dominated the foreign policy agenda over the past year remain unresolved, and the political shake-up in Washington opens the way for potential progress on each one.
For some of these unresolved issues, a divided government is more likely to produce results than one dominated by a single party. Foremost among such issues is immigration (for more information, see April’s Capitol Watch). In the spring, the Senate and the House debated widely divergent proposals for immigration reform. The Senate produced a complex compromise that combined tougher border security measures with the prospect of citizenship for many undocumented aliens already in the country. The compromise brought together Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans, and it appeared to be roughly in line with President Bush’s own instincts on immigration, which long been interpreted by many in his party as too lenient. The compromise foundered, however, in the House, where conservative Republicans blocked passage of the Senate compromise and introduced their own bills with much stronger border security provisions and fewer opportunities for illegal immigrants to become naturalized.
The midterms, however, have cleared many of these hurdles. Not only are the Democratic majorities in each chamber of Congress more amenable to the type of immigration reform outlined by the president, but some of the most outspoken Republican hardliners on immigration fell victim on November 7. Most notably, J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)—a consistent and vocal opponent of immigration reform that incorporated guest worker or amnesty provisions—was defeated by his Democratic challenger, Harry Mitchell. Republican opponents to Bush’s immigration reform, then, have lost not just their votes in Congress but also many of their rhetorical superstars. In terms of ideology, immigration reform is an issue that is ripe for agreement between the Democratic Congress and the Republican president. The real question lies in the politics of the matter. Will Democrats be willing to grant the president a victory on an issue he has championed for years? And will the president be willing to bury the remaining Republicans in Congress who oppose his ideas on immigration reform? Only time will tell.
Another issue ripe for political progress is energy policy (for more information, see February’s Capitol Watch). Democrats have long campaigned on reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil and increasing investment in alternative energy sources. But in his state of the union address in January, President Bush surprised many by using this same language of “energy independence.” He announced plans for a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research, as well as for greater research on battery technology, hydrogen, and various types of ethanol for automobile use. Bush stated his ultimate goal was to replace more than 75 percent of U.S. oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.
At the time, Democrats certainly approved of the president’s goals; their only grounds for doubt lied in the sincerity of Bush’s words. Now that Democrats control the legislature, the onus is on Bush. If his derision of the United States’ “addiction to foreign oil” is sincere, Bush likely will find the Democratic Congress amenable to boosted investment in renewable energy sources and toward cleaner sources of automobile fuel. And so far, this seems to be the case. Al Hubbard, a top White House economic adviser, has indicated that the president will soon launch a bold “energy independence” initiative, with an emphasis on biofuel research and production. “I actually think from talking to Democrats [that] they have the same concerns we do … [concerning] our addiction to foreign oil,” Hubbard said. Problems will arise if the specific details of a White House proposal conflict with the desires of the Democratic Congress. More broadly, Democrats again will have to balance to prospect of legislative success (in the form of mutually acceptable energy legislation) with that of political failure (in the form of permitting the president to appear productive and bipartisan).
Politics being what it is, however, it is just as likely that divided government will result in gridlock on a number of important issues. The president has indicated that he wants the lame duck session of Congress to address the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program (for more information, see July’s Capitol Watch). Prior to the midterm elections, several conflicting bills addressing this issue were being circulated in both houses of Congress, one of which—the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006—is supported by the president. But it is exceedingly difficult for lame duck sessions of Congress to address controversial issues, especially when the intervening election alters the political landscape so dramatically. Indeed, one of the sponsors of the Terrorist Surveillance Act—Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH)—was defeated on November 7. As a senior Democratic aide for the House Judiciary Committee put it, “there’s no chance of [a bill authorizing the NSA program] happening.”
Of course, the most pressing foreign policy issue—and the one that undoubtedly drove the Republicans’ collective defeat on November 7—is the war in Iraq. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), who will become chair of the Armed Services Committee in January, has already called for beginning U.S. troop reductions from Iraq within the next six months. But as a constitutional matter, Congress’ options for directly affecting Iraq policy are limited (for more information, see August’s Capitol Watch). It appears as if both Republicans and Democrats are pinning their hopes for a new Iraq policy on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG), chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton. The ISG’s report, due in the coming weeks, is widely expected to endorse some form of phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, perhaps with a short-term boost in troop levels followed by longer-term decline. Democrats and Republicans alike realize that the Iraq war is going poorly, but with a presidential election only two short years away, they are loath to lend too much support to ideas emanating from their political opponents. The bipartisan and (nominally) apolitical ISG may solve this gridlock by providing the requisite political cover for a new policy.
The beginnings of a new, post-election Iraq policy have not waited for the ISG’s report, however. On November 8—less than 24 hours after the election—Bush announced the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, offering the clearest evidence that the midterms had already affected at least the execution of his foreign policy. Rumsfeld’s resignation is a reminder that Congress’ influence in foreign policy extends far beyond its legislation and oversight. As a vehicle for representing national will, the legislature affects foreign policy through its mere composition alone. Americans had become disillusioned with the country’s current foreign policy, and the midterm elections crystallized this sentiment far better than any opinion poll ever could. Whether such sentiment can actually be translated into successful legislation—or even new policy itself—is a question that can only be answered after the 110th Congress convenes in January.
Posted by Daniel Widome at 10:27 PM to U. S. Politics
