Democrats stand a very real chance of winning the House of Representatives on November 7.  As election time nears, it now appears conceivable that the Senate is within their grasp as well.  With this in mind, it would be prudent to discuss the future of a Democrat controlled Congress.  


On the surface, the general consensus is that the midterm election will boil down to a referendum on Iraq.  Do you support the occupation of Iraq and the Bush apologists in Congress that allow this policy to continue unchallenged, or do you want new leadership that will oppose the Bush Administration’s incompetent and indefinite protraction of this conflict?  Indeed, many voters are likely to be motivated by precisely this issue, dispelling the conventional wisdom and political maxim that all politics is local.  


But the stakes for this election are much greater than our future course in Iraq.  The midterms may truly be our last hope to elect leaders who will exercise congressional oversight of the Executive branch, restore constitutional checks and balances, and halt an otherwise inexorable slide into fascism.  It will require a Democrat majority in one or both Houses, albeit a slight majority at best.  That said, it is critically important to examine what will be on the table for a Democrat controlled Congress, and to adopt a wise strategy that recognizes political limitations and optimizes the chance for success.


There are five things the Democrats can do if and when they win one or both Houses on Capitol Hill.  They can:


1. Pass legislation


2. Block legislation


3. Confirm or block presidential appointments


4. Investigate


5. Impeach (technically, impeachment must originate in the House of Representatives)



Let’s look more closely at each of these activities.


Pass legislation:  This activity is associated with the highest expectations amongst Democrats, and the lowest expectations amongst Republicans.  The Republicans might be right - not because of the inane accusation that the Democrats have no ideas, or that liberal ideas will destroy this God-fearing country, but because even a majority controlled Democrat House or Senate will have to mount a Herculean effort to pass legislation in the face of an intransigent Republican minority.  They certainly will not be able to muster enough votes to override a Bush veto in all but the most extraordinary circumstances (can you say stem cell research).  If liberals hinge all their hopes on the miracle that Democrats will ride into town and enact sweeping legislation to clean up Washington, retire the treasury debt, erase the trade deficit, fix healthcare, end terrorism, and quickly repair the mess in Iraq, they will be sadly disappointed.  If Democrats promise all this and an iPod in every pot, they will set themselves up for a failure that Republicans will be sure to remind us of during the 2008 elections.  I’m not saying that sweeping reforms and landmark bills cannot be passed under these circumstances with consensus building and a bit of shrewd political maneuvering, I’m just saying to be realistic about what can be accomplished, legally and ethically, without a supermajority.  Republicans should know this lesson by now.


Block legislation:  This is much easier than passing legislation, and when used judiciously may be the Democrats best weapon.  The Republican controlled Congress has blocked nearly every piece of legislation drafted by a Democrat since 2003 for the Senate and 1995 for the House of Representatives.  Many good bills were discarded out of hand simply for the sheer partisan advantage of later pointing to an opponent and saying “Democrats have no ideas.”  One can only hope that the Democrats will not similarly abuse their newly recovered power for petty retribution against all things Republican (fortunately this has not been their modus operandi during their previous long reign of congressional control).  But blocking bad legislation is a good thing.  It would have been a nice power to have when the Patriot Act was debated, or when it came up for renewal, or when tax cuts heavily favoring the wealthy or tax breaks for oil companies came to a vote.  Lately the term obstructionist has been used frequently to negatively label the political opponent.  It is meaningful and accurate only when good legislation is blocked.  When bad legislation is blocked the proper term is statesman.


Confirm or block presidential appointments:  This alone is reason enough to vote for Democrats.  If Justice John Paul Stevens retires while the Congress is in Republican hands, we can say goodbye to the last check on presidential power and hello to the Unitary Executive.  Then the President will truly become the King and 200 years of separate but equal branches of government will be vanquished, as well as democracy as we know it.


Investigate:  The power of oversight is an absolutely essential function of Congress, and one that, up to now, has been sadly neglected when Republican congressmen are asked to investigate other Republican congressmen or the Republican Administration (to whom they have so willingly abdicated their power).  Oversight entails ongoing review of current activities and past deeds of the Executive and Judiciary, and of the Congress itself.  Conservatives raise the specter of Democrats riding into power after the midterms, hell-bent upon investigating the President and his Administration, so caught up in their desire for retribution that they will neglect lawmaking.  Sounds scary, but in fact every Congress since the 1st has performed their constitutionally mandated responsibilities of legislation AND oversight at the same time, including the congresses that impeached Nixon and Clinton – all, that is, until the present day, lap dog, and magnificently corrupt 109th Congress.  It is not a distraction to perform oversight:  it is a duty of office.


Impeach:  O.K., I’ll admit it.  I hate George W. Bush, and I hate his Administration.  I don’t hate them personally, although I have the gut feeling that if I got to know them, I probably would.  No, I hate them for what they have done to the country I love.  There is nobody that wants to impeach them more than me (again, another gut feeling).  Despite my scorn for these pubic servants who serve no one but themselves, I wish to state definitively that Democrats should not seek to impeach President Bush or Dick Cheney.  It is not a good political strategy, nor is it justified when armed only with suppositions and allegations.  However, Democrats should leave no stone unturned in investigating the many suspected nefarious deeds of the Bush Administration.  Years of stonewalling, diversion tactics, media intimidation or manipulation, empty promises, and neglect by the White House and members of the Republican Congress have produced far too many questions and few answers.  These questions pertain to 9-11, the manipulation of pre Iraq War intelligence, the practice of warrentless wiretapping of US citizens, the extent of detainee abuse, closed door White House energy policy meetings, White House ties to the K Street Project, and widespread war profiteering, to name but a few.  A Democrat majority in either House, armed with the power of sworn testimony and subpoena, will be in a position to finally learn the truth.  Talk of impeachment before congressional oversight proves wrongdoing not only puts the carriage before the horse, but also could cost Democrats the midterm election.  


So let’s say that Democrats control the Congress after the midterm elections, they get down to the business of performing Congressional oversight, they subpoena Bush Administration officials for testimony under oath, including the President and Vice President, and in the course of their investigations they find ample cause to impeach.  With only two years left in President Bush’s second term, and more likely one or less by the time oversight has progressed to a call for impeachment, what is to be gained?  What good could come from yet another national embarrassment?  Bear in mind that impeachment removes the President or Vice President (or civil officers) from office, nothing more.  Technically it is a political process, not a criminal process.  In the absence of martial law or coup d’etat, President Bush steps down January 20, 2009, so is impeachment even worth the effort?  The answer to the last question is a resounding yes.  


The high-minded reasons to impeach are as follows:

  • Justice might be delayed, but it should never be discarded.  

  • The law should not be applied only when expedient.

  • A law that is not enforced is irrelevant, and a law that is selectively enforced is discriminatory.  

  • If we can use the power of impeachment upon a sitting President because of perjury arising from the answer to an inappropriate and non-germane question of sexual impropriety, we cannot hesitate to use it again if the crime is far more serious.

  • If our leaders fail to uphold their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, it is a breach of allegiance to one’s government, and technically treason.  Impeachment is the lightest of consequences.


There are several practical justifications for impeachment:

  • Impeachment demonstrates to our politicians that they cannot act with impunity; that they must act within the law, not above it.  

  • If accountability is absent when power is abused, then nothing will stop even greater abuses of power in the future and the emergence of tyranny.

  • The process of impeachment will demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are not a nation of hypocrites; that no man – not even the President - is above our law, and that our country is not above international law.  

  • If we can't demonstrate to the world that our founding principles still hold, then we are hobbled diplomatically and will never again be looked to as an honest broker for the democratic ideals we supposedly stand for, promote, and hope to export to other nations.

  • It will become increasingly difficult for Republican congressmen to obstruct Democrat sponsored legislation for purely partisan motives if the entire party is attempting to distance itself from a discredited Republican Administration.  We are already witnessing an early breakdown of cohesion among Republican ranks prior to the midterms.  Imagine the mad rush towards the center when their far right Republican Party standard bearer gets impeached.  Who knows, at this point maybe Democrats will be able to legislate real change after all!


In summary, the stakes are high for the midterm election – nothing more than the preservation of our constitutional democracy.  There is no mechanism for congressional oversight to spontaneously reemerge if Republicans keep control of the House and Senate and continue to abdicate power to the presidency.  Given the phenomenal power grab of the White House during the last six years, it becomes increasingly more unlikely as time goes on that power ceded to the Executive by the Congress will ever be returned.  We cannot risk another two years without checks and balances.  A Democrat victory at the midterms is a necessary, but not sufficient step to first halt, and then reverse this trend.  The battle has only begun after the midterms are over, and the Democrats will be well advised not to declare Mission Accomplished.  An intelligent and strategic game plan for the Democrat majority in Congress is essential, so as not to fall into a political trap of empty promises and unrealistically high expectations.  They need to deal with the reality on the ground at Capitol Hill – they will not be greeted with flowers and candy.  Democrats will get in there, they will pass what legislation they can, they will finally be able to block bad legislation, they will approve and block political appointments, they will devoutly elevate Congressional oversight to the level of a religious experience, and (sorry House Speaker Pellosi) they will never, never take impeachment off the table if their investigations prove that crimes have been committed.  At least that is what Democrats will do if they want their anticipated return to power next week to not be their last.