Armchair Political Analysis
Democrats regained control yesterday of the House (and probably the Senate) via a clever, if seemingly unorthodox, strategy: A nearly-complete lack of detail of their agenda.
What will they do to strengthen the economy? How will they avoid the scandal and corruption that characterized Republican control in the past year (and, one might add, Democratic control last time around)? And, for the hot-button issue, how will their policies on Iraq and the war on terror generate more success than President Bush's policies?
Democrats were very smart, though. They realized that by remaining largely silent, voters would not have to choose between Republicans and Democrats. Instead, the choice would be the Republican agenda versus the "anything has got to be better than that" agenda.
It's not so much that Democrats won this election. It's that Republicans clearly lost it.
Could John Kerry have won the presidency two years ago by adhering to a similar code of silence? Probably not. That campaign strategy doesn't play well in nationally-televised one-on-one debates.
If there's any one thing at which "W"'s presidency has succeeded, ironically, perhaps it's that the electorate has gotten a little smarter. If the new majority party fails to generate articulate, successful policies, particularly toward Iraq, then voters in 2008 may turn Democrats away from more places than the White House.
As always, I believe that if you don't vote, you shouldn't really complain about the system. Voting is the very least we can do to participate.
What will they do to strengthen the economy? How will they avoid the scandal and corruption that characterized Republican control in the past year (and, one might add, Democratic control last time around)? And, for the hot-button issue, how will their policies on Iraq and the war on terror generate more success than President Bush's policies?
Democrats were very smart, though. They realized that by remaining largely silent, voters would not have to choose between Republicans and Democrats. Instead, the choice would be the Republican agenda versus the "anything has got to be better than that" agenda.
It's not so much that Democrats won this election. It's that Republicans clearly lost it.
Could John Kerry have won the presidency two years ago by adhering to a similar code of silence? Probably not. That campaign strategy doesn't play well in nationally-televised one-on-one debates.
If there's any one thing at which "W"'s presidency has succeeded, ironically, perhaps it's that the electorate has gotten a little smarter. If the new majority party fails to generate articulate, successful policies, particularly toward Iraq, then voters in 2008 may turn Democrats away from more places than the White House.
As always, I believe that if you don't vote, you shouldn't really complain about the system. Voting is the very least we can do to participate.