A GOP Plan to 'Fix' the Democrats

E. J. Dionne editorialized in the WaPo Democrats in the Senate insist on their right to stop some of President Bush's judges because Republicans were so aggressive in stopping Clinton judges in the '90s. Privately, Senate Democrats are especially furious that Republicans have completely reversed their position on whether there is even a need for more federal judicial appointments. During the Clinton administration, many Republican senators insisted that there were too many federal judges and that it was therefore unnecessary for the president to fill all the vacancies that came up at the time. Republicans changed their story after President Bush's election, talking about a "vacancy crisis."

Maybe they finally understood the crisis the Dems were talking about, or maybe they just did not see any need for more extreme left wing liberal judges.

Democrats are dug in on judges precisely because they do not want to reward Republican obstruction in the 1990s. The theory is that one wave of obstruction deserves -- even demands -- another.

There is a difference. The Republicans were in the majority, and did not see a reason to approve nominees of a Democratic president. The Dems are a minority seeking to block the will of the majority.

In refusing to deal with Bush on Social Security privatization, Democrats recall the battle over Clinton's health care plan. While a few moderate Republicans, notably the late Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island, were willing to bargain with Clinton, the party as a whole put up a front of opposition. Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich made it a matter of party discipline to bar anyone in his caucus from negotiating with the Democrats.

Now that Republicans are in control of the presidency and both houses, Democrats -- even moderates who might otherwise favor modest Social Security changes -- see no reason to help Republicans dismantle any aspect of a program that is central to the Democratic legacy. They note (sometimes with grudging admiration) that Republicans paid no price for obstructing health care reform in the 1990s and that Republicans have no right to demand Democratic complicity with Bush now.

If they are successful, just think what will happen if there is ever another Dem in the White House.

As for DeLay, there is singular Democratic satisfaction in seeing that the moralist who insisted that Clinton be impeached is now embroiled in a series of ethical scandals. DeLay, it should be recalled, pressured many House Republicans to vote, against their own instincts, for impeachment.

Moreover, the DeLay scandals go to the heart of how Republicans have achieved power since 1994: the creation of an interlocking directorate of politicians, lobbyists, fundraisers and interest groups. For Democrats, the DeLay scandal is not simply a political gift but also an opportunity for public education on the nature of the Republicans' congressional machine.

And one that is likely to entrap more Dems than Republicans.

DeLay's fate will depend on how long his party stays loyal to him and whether there are new revelations. But even on the issues of Social Security and judges, there can be no easy compromise, because both sides understand the stakes in these battles in exactly the same way. DeLay himself drew the line sharply the day after the 2004 elections. "The Republican Party is a permanent majority for the future of this country," DeLay declared. "We're going to be able to lead this country in the direction we've been dreaming of for years."

Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and a leading figure in both the DeLay and Bush political operations, chose more colorful post-election language to describe the future. "Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans," he told Richard Leiby of The Post. "Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant. But when they've been 'fixed,' then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful." If you wonder in the coming weeks why Democrats are so reluctant to give ground, remember Norquist's jocular reference to neutering the opposition party. Democrats are neither contented nor cheerful over the prospect of being "fixed."

Most animals being "fixed" don't necessarilly enjoy the operation.

Should that surprise anyone?

Betsy Newmark blogged All the things that he criticizes the GOP for resembles something that the Democrats have already done. You could turn his whole column around and write it from the conservative point of view of Republicans criticizing Democrats for things that they did or said in the 90s. Let's face it. Whichever party is in power wants to increase and solidify their control. Neither party operates out of altruism towards the other side. And each side has "an interlocking directorate of politicians, lobbyists, fundraisers and interest groups." It's not just the GOP. If Dionne thinks otherwise, he is incredibly naive for an old Washington hand and should turn in his pundit license.