I know this has come up more than once, but when [tag]Paul Krugman[/tag] tackles an issue, it adds a certain weight to the controversy at hand. And this week, with the elections just 22 days away, Krugman has a simple message: “[T]his is a [tag]one-letter[/tag] [tag]election[/tag]. [tag]D or R[/tag], that’s all that matters.”
I can appreciate why this may sound distasteful to some voters. The notion that party affiliation matters at least as much, if not more, than a candidate’s other qualities runs counter to the claim most voters make about their choices (“I vote for the person, not the party”). But as [tag]Krugman[/tag] makes clear, “It’s hard to think of an election in which the personal qualities of the people running in a given district or state have mattered less.”
The first, lesser reason is the demonstrated ability of Republican Congressional leaders to keep their members in line, even those members who cultivate a reputation as moderates or mavericks. G.O.P. politicians sometimes make a show of independence, as Senator John McCain did in seeming to stand up to President Bush on torture. But in the end, they always give the White House what it wants: after getting a lot of good press for his principled stand, Mr. McCain signed on to a torture bill that in effect gave Mr. Bush a completely free hand.
And if the Republicans retain control of Congress, even if it’s by just one seat in each house, Mr. Bush will retain that free hand. If they lose control of either house, the G.O.P. juggernaut will come to a shuddering halt.
I don’t necessarily consider this a “lesser” reason; I think of it more as the most persuasive selling point. It’s an argument Harold Meyerson raised a couple of weeks ago: even the most “centrist” of [tag]Republicans[/tag] still vote for far-right leadership, who in turn set a far-right agenda that allows Bush to do anything he wants.
Which segues nicely to Krugman’s other point.
The really important reason may be summed up in two words: subpoena power…. [W]hile the [tag]Democrats[/tag] won’t gain the ability to pass laws, if they win they will gain the ability to carry out investigations, and the legal right to compel testimony.
The current Congress has shown no inclination to investigate the Bush administration. Last year The Boston Globe offered an illuminating comparison: when Bill Clinton was president, the House took 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether Mr. Clinton had used the White House Christmas list to identify possible Democratic donors. But in 2004 and 2005, a House committee took only 12 hours of testimony on the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
If the Democrats take control, that will change — and voters should think very hard about whether they want that change. Those who think it’s a good idea to investigate, say, allegations of cronyism and corruption in Iraq contracting should be aware that any vote cast for a Republican makes Congressional investigations less likely. Those who believe that the administration should be left alone to do its job should be aware that any vote for a Democrat makes investigations more likely.
Nuances about where the candidates fall on the ideological spectrum don’t matter much at all given this broader dynamic. If you’re committed to the Republican Party, you’re committed to a certain national agenda and far-right leadership. Even those “mavericks” who promise to occasionally break ranks a) usually fail to follow through; and b) still allow the ultra-conservative leadership to write the game plan. [tag]GOP[/tag] “centrists,” therefore, enable the GOP’s far-right mainstream by virtue of their decision to stick with the Republican Party, no matter how far to the right the party is willing to go.
Likewise, the same dynamic applies to right-leaning Dems in red states — they need our support because, even if they vote the wrong way on most issues (Sen. Ben Nelson, I’m looking in your direction), they’ll still cast that first vote for the Dem leadership. It’s the vote that helps establish the agenda for two years.
In other words, once again, party matters.