Democrats in Congress and their backers in the blogosphere look forward to another year of pointless debates about the Iraq war, with Congress unable or unwilling to influence the course of events. Liberals argue that Democrats can only benefit; that voters won’t view the outcome in Iraq positively enough to punish them for trying to force a retreat. That could turn out to be true. But the lack of achievement by Congress exposes Democrats to a powerful criticism: that they chose to confront the president rather than work with him, and wasted so much time on Iraq that they were unable to address any of the priorities of the American people. If situation in Iraq does not suddenly get much worse, or Congress does not embrace compromise with the president, Democrats will be playing defense in 2008 and Democratic incumbents will pay the price. The 110th Congress is nearing the end of its productive half, and getting ready to begin the election year ‘lame-duck’ half–where traditionally nothing gets done as Members focus on re-election. It’s becoming clear that this will be one of the least productive Congresses in memory. Democrats have enacted a few measures: the minimum wage increase that they blocked while in the minority was finally signed into law, as was a lobbying reform measure that hasn’t changed anything. But the list of what they have not accomplished is much longer. Congress Daily recently summed up what remains for this year:
That leaves out entirely big issues such as education, health care, mortgage lending, and entitlement reform, which no one expected to be resolved this term. That doesn’t mean however, that Democrats will get a ‘pass’ on them next year. This inability to deliver on even a single big-ticket item leads voters to give this Congress one of the worst ratings ever. According to the latest Gallup poll, just 20 percent of Americans approve of the job that Congress is doing. Among independents–whose votes typically prove critical on election day–the approval rate is just 14 percent.
Why has so little been accomplished? Republicans will argue it’s because Democrats chose confrontation, and decided to spend two years holding votes on Iraq. (As the New York Times reported yesterday, Democrats say that they will continue these pointless debates until the end of Bush’s term.) If Iraq is stable come election day, they’ll ask the American people whether Congress ought to have spent two years trying desperately to force a retreat, or should instead have worked on illegal immigration, energy, health care, entitlement reform, and other pressing matters. They’ll campaign on a promise to work in good faith with whoever is elected president, and not to squander two years chasing a white whale to please the base–as Democrats look like they intend to do. If the next year plays out as the last one has, Democrats will regret the effort they wasted throwing roadblocks in front of a successful military effort, rather than addressing priorities at home.
