|
By John Fortier
|
|
Posted: 04/17/07 07:38 PM [ET] |
Democrats have trumpeted and Republicans bashed the 110th Congress’s performance at the 100-day mark. So here’s my take. It is too early to judge the legislative success of the Democrats’ Six for ’06 agenda, but some of it likely will be enacted. The agenda and Democratic leaders have been successful at keeping the caucus together. The fight over the Iraq war came earlier and more intensely than expected and overshadowed the domestic agenda. Republican leadership, especially in the Senate, has been skillful.
The 100-day time frame for assessing a Congress is completely arbitrary. One hundred is a nice round number, and it hearkens back to President Franklin Roosevelt’s flurry of activity coming into office, but FDR’s situation was unique. He had just crushed Herbert Hoover in the 1932 election, and Democrats had a nearly 200-seat edge in the House and an over-20-seat edge in the Senate. FDR also called a special session of Congress to adopt his legislative program, and while it was very productive, much of what we think of as the New Deal passed in subsequent sessions.
Since then presidents have been judged at the 100-day mark, even though Labor Day would be a more reasonable date for assessment. The success of Six for ’06 won’t be known at least until the fall. Most likely, reactions will be mixed. Minimum wage will pass more or less as planned; stem cell research will not overcome the president’s veto. Other items like the 9/11 Commission recommendations and additional ethics reforms may pass in modified form. It is not completely fair to compare Six for ’06 to the Republicans’ 1994 Contract with America, as the Contract had a larger agenda. But parts of the Contract were done early, some never done, and others accomplished only later. Some of the tax provisions of the Contract were passed years later in the Bush administration.
Six for ’06 and the Contract with America, however, both served to unify the majority caucus. Democratic unity was enhanced (especially in the House) by working together very early on for a common goal. Democratic leaders also deserve credit. There were some bumps in the road, such as the Murtha-Hoyer contest and the difficult balancing act of keeping both moderate and liberal Democrats on the war supplemental, but all in all, they have managed to hold together their narrow majority.
Iraq became a divisive partisan issue even sooner than many had anticipated. If events had unfolded differently, there might have been a period of relative peace in which the domestic agenda dominated. But President Bush’s surge strategy and the Democratic presidential candidates’ appeals to the anti-war base ramped up this conflict. Democrats have public opinion on the war on their side, but have to be careful not to violate one of the cardinal rules of politics: “When your opponent is down, stand above the fray, and let them keep shooting themselves in the foot.”
Republicans do not have the best political hand at the moment, but their leaders are playing it skillfully. Especially in the Senate, where minority leadership matters most, Republicans have two experienced strategists in Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott. They have adroitly opposed Democrats, but have also found ways to let their more moderate and vulnerable members cast independent votes. And they know how to use the backstop of a presidential veto in cases where Senate opposition is not to their advantage.
One hundred days is not a long time, not long enough for a reasoned assessment, but enough time for a glimpse of what is to come.
Fortier is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. |
