Election reform? All has changed

by Michael Munger

Although we focus on events in Washington every day, we may not realize how fundamentally the attacks of Sept. 11 have changed things inside the Beltway.

In Congress before 9-11, the Democrats were stronger than they had been at any time since the Republican revolution in 1994. They had controlled the Senate since June, and Republican retirements and incumbent vulnerability meant that control would be broadened and deepened in the midterm election.

In the House, the return of the "Blue Dog" Democrats to their home party this spring and summer spelled the end of any hopes President Bush might have had for bipartisan support for his programs on health care, tax cuts and other issues. The tax cut that Bush did manage to get passed was centered on a one-time rebate, a Democratic proposal. It looked as if Bush might have to give in to a variety of Democratic demands, if he wanted to get anything done in the legislature.

Now, all of that has changed. There are many reasons, chief among which is the perfectly right and proper tendency for citizens and elected officials alike to rally around leaders in time of crisis. But there is something more going on. Here are four areas where American politics are strikingly different.

Before Sept. 11: election reform at all levels.

After: anthrax detection at the local level.

The election in 2000, not just in Florida but in many states where irregularities and embarrassing lack of attention made vote counts suspect, is completely off the political radar. Local authorities are completely overwhelmed trying to cope with panic, and in some instances, with real cases of anthrax infection. Campaign finance reform is dead, and local election reform is teetering.

Before: flagging economy.

After: flag bumper stickers.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 1,000 points in the two weeks after the attacks. But it also fell more than 1,000 points in the two weeks before the attacks. Measured unemployment rates, which do not yet reflect the effects of the attacks and the aftermath, have risen to nearly 5 percent, up from 4.5 percent in July and 3.9 percent a year ago. The only discussion of this seems to be the suggestion that laying off workers is "unpatriotic."

Before: possible huge surpluses.

After: possible huge deficits.

The idea behind the tax cut proposals of the campaign, and the early part of the Bush presidency, was to return an "overcharge" to taxpayers.

But the projections of surpluses extending out forever were based on a particular set of assumptions about growth, and increased wealth from dividends and capital gains. At all levels of government, these assumptions were turning out to be too rosy well before 9-11. We went from debating how to spend the surplus (February), to discussing whether to touch the Social Security surplus (August), to completely ignoring the fact that any kind of extended war (October) will bring back the huge fiscal deficits of the early 1990s.

The current Democratic plan focuses mostly on helping people who lost their jobs after 9-11. Many Dems want to increase federal spending for unemployment, health coverage and pork-barrel projects such as construction, which quickly create lots of new jobs. The Republicans in Congress have proposed a program centered instead on more tax cuts, at least $100 billion for the current year and even more in the future. So we have pork barrel vs. tax cuts, and arguments about deficits and fiscal responsibility have been gagged with duct tape.

Before: ascendant Democrats.

After: lapdog Democrats.

The fact is the Democrats have not shown much interest in foreign policy since the days of Jimmy Carter's presidency. In the 1980s, the Dems carped about Iran-Contra and dithered about Republican dirty politics abroad. But they haven't had a positive policy agenda that anyone would recognize, all the way through the Clinton administration. Most Democrats opposed the Persian Gulf war in 1990, they oppose missile defense systems and they favor multilateral action through international organizations such as the United Nations rather than almost any actions by the United States on its own.

In a recent New Republic, Michael Crowley pointed out that the onset of war, with foreign policy topping the agenda, means big trouble for the Democrats. A Gallup poll showed voters prefer Republicans by more than 25 points on foreign policy, and that was before the events of 9-11. Foreign policy, particularly in a setting that requires decisive action, is not the Democrats' long suit.

So has there been a change in our politics or only a disturbance? No one knows for sure, but two factors are going to matter the most.

First, can the Democrats find a way to present a positive agenda on foreign policy, rather than opposing (and appearing obstructionist)? This has to be done in a believable fashion, rather than just by cobbling together some set of positions and calling it the Democratic alternative.

The second factor is much more hopeful for the Democrats and represents the chief danger for the GOP. Americans are not, by nature, primarily focused on foreign policy. The bump Bush has received in the approval ratings is softer than a morning fog and could burn off just as quickly.

Remember: The elder Bush had approval ratings over 80 percent (at one point in the Persian Gulf war reaching nearly 90 percent!), but they turned out to be meaningless, falling to about 30 percent in just 15 months. The younger Bush went from an approval rating of 51 percent Sept. 10 to (sound familiar?) 89 percent in the most recent polls. Support that rises that fast can fall just as fast, because it reflects war fervor, not real accomplishment or political trust.

Everything is different now, and it always will be. The president has been given a colossal opportunity as a politician and an almost unimaginably complex problem as a leader. He has a short-term "get out of jail free" card from the huge rush of war fervor and patriotic zeal, but once he uses it up he may be in an even worse position than before.

The Democrats, on the other hand, had a strong position taken away from them. Their problem is they had all their eggs in the basket of domestic politics. Now they have to play catch-up, showing strength and creativity but not appearing uncooperative as the president carries out his constitutionally mandated duties as commander-in-chief.

There is no quick way out of this, so they just have to grit their teeth and try to gain ground little by little.