Will There Be a Loss of "Balance" in the Government?

Though I expressed this on an abuzz thread this morning, I'll repeat the sentiment here.

I find it deeply deeply disturbing to imagine the degree to which things will have to go seriously wrong in your country for Bush to lose two years up the road.

I'm not only concerned about balance, there is now a serious chance they might accomplish something.

On the judiciary though, I think there is a higher than normal number of vacancies in need of filing with somebody, regardless of political slant.

roger- Over the last two years, the "loyal opposition" has prevented the President from seating judges that they thought were too far from the mainstream. I am concerned lest the judiciary become too lopsided.

I favor balance, too. Do you really think the appointments are that far out of the mainstream? I mean, if we elect a president in the expectation that he is going to be conservative in outlook, we expect judical and other appointments to reflect that, don't we?

To paraphrase General "Vinegar" Joe Stilwell, we got a hell of a beating- we got run out and it's humiliating as hell- we need to find out what caused it, go back and retake the place.

Ultimately, the fault, I suspect lies with the namby-pamby Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, but a detailed analysis after the fact is clearly in order, followed by a shake-up at the top for the Dems. If we're not careful, it'll be another 4 years of Shrub, too.

I was pretty happy with things the way they were (i.e. The Dems controlling the Senate) although it would have been nice if Daschle had at least tried to work some things out instead of stonewalling.

But, I think yesterday is less of a "stamp of approval" for Bush than it is a signal of failure on the part of Democrats. To me it's a statment from the general public on 2 items - the general public is tired of the huffing and puffing on Capitol Hill and actually wants something done and they're tired of hearing the far left crying about the 2000 election. I think it's a statement to the far left to "get over it and get serious" or run the risk of being relegated to the background altogether.

I think blacksmithn is right, the Dems need to shake up their own party and get in touch with the public as a whole. it's time for a leadership change there...

Though it is entirely possible that a present leading Democrat may rise to some new occasion brought on by unforseen events, that individual sure as hell isn't visible now.

That this administration has managed to pull off these mid-term results with a President so poorly qualified and with an economy in its present state, and with the middle class losing ground each day, ought to alert us to the reality that Carl Rove and his team are as good as it gets, even if they are utterly despicable citizens.

The consequences now to campaign finance reform will not help.

Personally, I'm praying John McCain will become so offended with his party that he'll walk over. Then the dems might have a good chance in two years. Outside of that, I'll hope for a catastrophe.

roger- I think that there is mainstream conservatism, and radical conservatism. The whole political spectrum is a bell curve. I would expect that a wise Republican president would choose judges that reflect more mainstream conservatism.

I would not want to see any judges appointed whose ideology lies at EITHER end of that bell curve.

Mondale
I just listened to Mondale make his concession speech. I cannot exactly call it a "speech", because it was genuine and so unprepared that it brought tears to my eyes. If I may use an old observation for the purpose of a tribute: Nothing in his political career became him like the leaving of it. Mondale is what my dad would have called, a gentleman and a scholar. The torch is passed, and I do hope that it will burn brightly for America, and for the world.

The Republicans would need at least sixty seats in the Senate to really have any ability to "railroad" any legislation through that would make any drastic changes. Perhaps the Homeland Security bill will pass with the provision of no union influence but I doubt that that won't be compromised in some way. I don't believe it was because the Republican voter base was energized, it was that the Democratic voter base was lethargic and there's a small shift towards voting off the boards for independent and other parties. This has been the trend for years. If the Republicans start gloating and interpret this as a mandate to "go wild," it could easily backfire on them. This could be a blessing in disguise but only if the Democrats come up with some strong candidates in 2004 and the economy does not bounce back. A war an Iraq is somewhat indefinable but I can only see it destabalizing the Arab world even more and leading to future problems that may not occur in the next two years. Que sera, sera.

I have questions and impressions rather than statements:

What does the low turnout mean? It seemed to me that apathy is growing, and specially in the ranks of the democratic social bases.

If it's apathy, isn't it because the average citizen feels a divorce between his problems and interests and those of the Capitol and the political class?

If so, did most Americans vote thinking local, but not national, while the outcome has national and international effects?

And aside of that:

Wasn't the work of the Voter News Service shameful? Doesn't the US need an institution -different than the media- to oversee the elections and guarantee an adequate flux of information to the public? Such institutions exist in many countries, some of them a lot poorer than the USA.

And today is a day I will not visit Abuzz. Some loonies must be partying.

The turn-out rates mean something different to each and every one of us. As mentioned before, the only race here in MA was for the Govenor's seat. The one Senator up for election basically ran unopposed. We didn't have an option of concerning ourselves with the National or International aspects while voting.

I don't really understand the complaints about the VNS problems. In the immediate aftermath of the 2000 elections everyone screamed about how the VNS polls skewed things and that the media should hold off on predicting winners before the polls even close. That is exactly what happened yesterday. The news outlets all pretty much held their tongues until the polls closed in each area. I thought it was rather refreshing to get the actual poll results as the polls closed instead of hearing "projected winners" at 4 in the afternoon while the polls where still open for another 4 hours. VNS can go away for good as far as I'm concerned.

I agree, fishin', and there was an attempt to blame in on some databank errors but I hope they're built in!

No Reagan had a majority for awhile as did Clinton. I do not think that balance comes from which party is in power or even who is president but from a singleness of purpose and that has to be mandated by the people. At this time we seem to be, at least in my limited view of history, in limbo only looking towards individual needs which vary in the different parts of this vast country. We are in a bad place both domestically and the president does not have much influnce there and globally where the Congress does not have much influence. The one positive I see in all of this is that it will be awfully hard to blame either Carter or Clinton for the economical issues which loom before us.

I must say I fear that America is in for a long period of movement to the right. Bush has the gun enthusiasts, the religious right, the pro-business people, the low tax people, and now those who fear Islam (I say Islam, because, thanks to the efforts of a few misguided patriots, it is not just the Islamists who are looked upon as evil, but the entire Islamic world). The anti-Islam faction is now the focus of those who used to be so strongly anti-communist.

So, What are the liberal causes: full employment, health care, the environment, social security, open government, human rights, separation of church and state, and a foreign policy based on consensus and negotiation. Why is it people don't care about these things any more?

I think conservatives have been far more effective than liberals in persuading younger people of the wisdom of rightest policies. For one thing there is the huge religious TV effort to convert people to fundamentalism. There is the huge Republican information machine that for decades has portrayed Social Security as nothing more than a Ponzi game. They have persuaded large parts of the public that we don't need environmental controls, that medicare is unsupportable, and that all economic problems are rooted in misguided Liberal policies. The Republicans have done a remarkable job of persuasion, and with the younger people who have lived through very good times and who therefore feel pretty invincible.

Also, as Bush destabelizes the Arab world with his wars, and stirs up the terrorists, more and more people will flock to him as the one who will get tough with Islam. This is a downward spiral.

I am not sanguine about our near future.

This morning's take from Slate on Washington under the Republicans... http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx

I'd disagree with pretty much all of this. Conservatives haven't needed to do much of anything. The simple fact is that the left is still playing the political game with the rhetoric of the 1960s and those coming of voting age aren't buying it. The idea that specific issues are "owned" by one side or the other is long gone. The left continues to harp about the "religious right" and in doing do insults members of their own parties who also happen to be religious. What the left hasn't figured out yet is that they are their own worst enemy in the political arena. It's "toe-the-line or be insulted" attitude is driving supporters away.

Fishin, You and I certainly agree that the younger voters are not buying liberal ideas. We seem to disagree as to why.

I would agree that liberals have often gone to extremes on church state matters. When I was in school all through the 40s we had prayers in school on special occasions. No one was hurt by that. Same with Christmas programs with real Christmas songs. No one thought a thing about it. However, I grew up in a mid-west town of 35,000. The Jewish synagogue was a tiny building of about 500 sq. feet. There were 3000 students in my high school and I know of only three Jewish boys. What I am saying is that the community was almost 100% Christian. If any religious minority was offended by the prayers and the Christmas programs, they were being quiet about it. The situation is different today. We have large populations of minority religions. Many of these would also like to offer prayers in the school. The religious right, which you seem to want to defend, has said that only they have the true religion and therefore should be the ones that offer prayers. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others are excluded. Of course the religious right is not monolithic, and I am sure there is debate on this topic. Either you have to find a way to be fair to minority religions, or you just ignore them. It's not exactly aseasy as it was when I grew up.

I would point out that just because there are lots of fundamentalists and they make up a part of the conservative voting block, that does not make their position right. In the 1600s when religious authorities all over Europe were torturing and burning those who held opposing opinions, those authorities were representing the majority. After those religious authorities were stripped of their secular power and liberal governments were established, there was very little torture because of religious difference of opinion. We are now seeing, for the first time in a while, religious authorities seeking governmental power. Some are even saying that only they are fit to rule. Personally, I will always oppose this kind of thinking.

I will repeat my claim that the republicans have a huge information machine. If necessary, I think I can defend that point.

roger has the right idea: This congress is the most inactive one in over fifty years! They have accomplished very little, but was able to give themselves a pay raise. I would have preferred to see all of them thrown out, and the Green and Independents take over our government. All the Dems and Repubs do is argue, make everything a political issue, and gets nothing done. c.i.