Moderation in Moderation

Democratic takeover of Congress this year and the Republican Revolution of 1994 are not all together different.

To be clear, I stand behind my claims that, unlike 1994, this year people were voting against something, not for something. The Republican Revolution was about a core set of principles, and how those principles differed from those of the Democrats of the time. People rallied around those principles, and it was the crowning moment of 15+ years of the country's slow and steady move to the Right. This year was very, very different. It was all "Iraq sucks, Bush sucks, Republicans are all little Bushs, we need change". Very different from '94.

But there is one very important parallel to be drawn between the Revolution and 2006, and that is how the parties behaved afterward. After the Republican Revolution, Clinton was still president. That meant the Republicans would not be able to institute solidly conservative measures across the board. Anything the Democratic President deemed too conservative would clearly meet the veto pen. That's not to say that Republicans didn't push solidly conservative stuff. They did. Welfare Reform may well stand as the crowning achievement of the Clinton years (history will give him, not Congress, credit for that). The same is the case now with the Democrats. The President is a staunch conservative (unless you ask people in the Core Base about his conservatism), and therefore the Democrats must moderate their positions in order to bring change.

Here's the big difference: Democrats will not moderte their position to promote good government; they will moderate their position to win the White House and thereby increase their power to institute the liberal change their radical base seeks.

A group of ultra-liberals from the House of Representatives appeared on the Sunday TV shows this weekend. You might have seen it. It was an amazing thing. They seemed to have a rare moment of self-reflection. These Congressional liberals emphasized that for the next two years they are not going to act like liberals. Let that sink in for a second.

They are not going to act like liberals...for two years.

It's pretty shocking that they said this. Really shocking, actually. I wouldn't be surprised if they went back to the Bat Cave and Pelosi slapped them around a little for letting the cat out of the bag. It's like they showed their playbook for all to see. If we were to translate their statements from politiceese to English, it would look something like this:

"Yeah, we know that Americans really don't like liberals. We really had to push that Iraq mess thingy in order to get voted in. If we straight up told America what we want, they would have voted for three Iraqs. Now that we're in control, we really want the White House. That means for the next two years we need to pretend that we're not liberal. That way, we can get a closet liberal into the Oval Office and use our control of Congress to pass all kinds of kookball Far Left stuff. It's gonna be awesome."

Seriously, if they really thought that America wanted liberals in office they would push for a liberal Congressional agenda. It's like they realize how weak their position really is. I give Democrats a ton of credit for being smarter and stealthier than anyone realizes. They understand the mood of the country is still generally conservative, or, at the very least, not liberal. So they're doing the smart thing for their side--not fighting for their side. On the other hand, why put this strategy out there for all to see? Why acknowledge that you even realize this? Here are some of their actual quotes:

• Rep Barney Frank (D-MA)--"Our first efforts are going to be to do those things that I think the mainstream of America wants...[things like overthrowing the military's policy on gays are] not what we are going to begin with."
• Rep John Dingell (D-MI)--"Democrats like winning elections...We want to win elections and we're going to do our best to do so. This doesn't mean to get into any extreme positions on any matter. We'll do what makes good sense."
• Rep Charles Rangel (D-NY)--"We don't want really a fight with the president. What we want to do is to prove we can govern for the next two years."

Each quote in itself sounds harmless enough, but the overall sense is clear. They might as well have said, "America doesn't want liberals, so we'll do what most Americans want now, and we'll leave the crazy stuff that America doesn't want until we win the White House".

We all know that the media has spent the better part of the last six years making fun of President Bush. Iraq, his inability to be a competent orator, his demeanor and Southern character--all have served as foddor for the media. What is interesting as we look back on the politics of this millenium is two things: first, the attacks on conservatives have been aimed at personalities, not very much at ideas. Even listening to Pelosi attacking the President this is clear. It's all "he's dumb" "he's incompetent" "Iraq sucks" "his fault". There is no real bashing of conservative ideas. It's all Freak Show stuff. Second, since the minority always gets to attack, and since the media loves to cover an attack, the minority has been shielded from the the attacks on their ideas.

The liberals are now back out of the shadows and on the stage They seem to realize that to get elected they need to be able to keep the attention off of themselves. No liberal agenda. Nothing controversial. Just bills like "Flags for Orphans" and "Puppy Abuse Prevention". Nothing liberal.

Pretty smart.

Beware, though, when the country realizes what Rangle, Frank, Dingell, and Pelosi really stand for. Then it will be back to the shadows for another decade. However, if they can moderate their position for two years, they may well be able to fool America into electing one of their ilk to the Big House.

[Editor's Note: In case you missed it, SNL did a Pelosi skit that starts to draw attention to the logical conclusion of liberal though. Ridiculous, but the idea is clear--liberal thought is crazy. It's not making fun of her person, but her policy positions. Sorry, you have to watch a commercial before it will play.]