Capitol downhill

In the final weeks of this bruising campaign, the debate, in many ways, comes down to this: what would happen if the Democrats win?

In the final weeks of this bruising campaign, the debate, in many ways, comes down to this: what would happen if the Democrats win? Republicans warn, ever more urgently, that a Democratic takeover of Congress would mean wrenching ideological change: higher taxes; big new spending; maybe even impeachment.

Democrats insist they have no intention of an abrupt lurch to the left, offering instead a relatively modest agenda and the less-than-revolutionary rallying cry of 8220;more oversight!8221;

In fact, a Democratic majority in the House or the Senate 8212; or both 8212; would immediately change Washington in fundamental ways after four years of one-party Republican rule. That majority seemed less theoretical last week as Republican woes, most recently the scandal over Mark Foley and Congressional pages, added up. Even so, it would operate under some formidable constraints, political and institutional.

A Democratic Congress would have sweeping new powers to set the agenda and focus the political debate 8212; through the hearings it calls, the witnesses it summons and the kind of legislation it brings to the floor. 8220;More oversight8221; could be more revolutionary than it sounds, with the rise of lawmakers like Representative Henry Waxman, the hard-charging California Democrat who would take over the House Government Reform Committee; in an interview, he promised a review into 8220;waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers8217; money8221; related to Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and homeland security.

A Democratic majority in the Senate could also stymie, or at least slow, the conservative reconstruction of the Supreme Court, assuming another vacancy occurs in the next two years, and force President Bush to seek more bipartisanship on all judicial nominees.

8220;You8217;re not going to have a polarising figure,8221; said Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who would take over the Judiciary Committee. 8220;It would require more of an effort at consensus for lifetime appointments.8221;

Moreover, a Democratic Congress could force Bush and a Republican minority to take a stand 8212; again and again, if it chooses 8212; on popular Democratic causes like raising the minimum wage or encouraging embryonic stem cell research. 8220;If you have true openness in the debate, you have the chance to make some of these issues too hot for the president and too hard for many Republicans to vote against,8221; said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader who would most likely be speaker if the Democrats prevail.

Story continues below this ad

But even if Democrats wanted a true liberal restoration, with two years of major legislation 8212; and some, in their heart of hearts, yearn for just that 8212; they almost certainly won8217;t have the numbers to achieve it. Even if they win control of both houses next month, their majorities will most likely be narrow: in the Senate, fewer than the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster and force a vote; in both House and Senate, fewer than the two-thirds necessary to override a presidential veto.

Democrats are also unlikely to have the extraordinary unity that the Republican majority had in its early days, given their divisions on issues like Iraq.

The new Democrats would most likely include some high-profile moderates or conservatives like Bob Casey Jr., the Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania, underscoring the ideological range in the Democratic caucuses. One veteran Democrat said, somewhat ruefully, that his party would be unable to emulate the Republicans8217; party discipline even if it wanted to, and thus will have to look for bipartisan coalitions.

The Democratic agenda is less Great Society than New Direction, as it is somewhat ambiguously called. 8220;They8217;re appropriately wary of both high expectations for what they can achieve, as well as the risk of some of their members running off in directions that would be harmful to their long-term interests in winning back the White House and holding the Democratic majority,8221; said Thomas Mann, a Brookings scholar.

Story continues below this ad

So the Democrats, for now, promise carefully focused change, like raising the minimum wage, expanding assistance for college tuition, giving the government the authority to negotiate prices for the new Medicare prescription drug program. They call for the immediate start of a 8220;phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq.8221; They promise to 8220;fight any plan to privatise Social Security, in whole or in part.8221;

Nowhere is the party8217;s careful calibration more apparent than on taxes. Many Democrats are running on a promise of fiscal responsibility and cutting the deficit, and many have argued that the nation should look for new revenues by rolling back the Bush administration8217;s tax cuts for the wealthiest

Morris Fiorina, a political scientist at Stanford, said: 8220;I think we8217;re going to limp into 2008.8221;

8211;ROBIN TONER