Jake Young is a 
Whatever you think about Michael Barone's personal views, he knows more about the history of American politics than any man alive. Here is an article he wrote in the WSJ about the history of party changes in Congress during second-term off-year elections. Interesting stuff. Money quote:
All of which leaves me with the conclusion that ideas are more important than partisan vote counts. Democrats could not go beyond the New Deal from 1938 to 1958, because they had not persuaded most Americans to go Roosevelt's way until 13 years after his death. Similarly, Republicans never had reliable majorities for Reagan's polices until 1994, six years after he left office. Democratic gains in 1974 made the House the most left-leaning branch of government for 20 years--in vivid contrast to the prognostication of '60s liberals, who said it would always be the most conservative--and Republican gains in 1994 made it the most conservative-leaning. Those majorities affected public policy, but not always in ways their partisans liked.If the Democrats are justified in preparing to change the drapes today, the questions to ask are: How enduring will be such a partisan switch? How much change in public policy will it accomplish? To the first question, the likelihood of an enduring partisan switch is not high--if you believe the polls showing the leading Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, walloping the best-known Democrats, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Al Gore, in 2008. Changes in public policy? Well, the lead item on the Democrats' wish list is to raise the minimum wage, a law first passed in 1938. Not exactly a new idea.
I don't know what the results of the midterm elections of 2006 will be. But I doubt that they will have the sweeping partisan or policy consequences of the midterm elections of 1874 and 1894, or 1938 and 1994.
Read the whole thing.
Comments
Actually, I pretty much agree with the article. The Democrats haven't done much at all to establish themselves as an opposition party in spite of the fact that we were pretty clearly lied into war and have seen the most egregious usurpation of civil liberties since the alien and sedition acts. The only reason I support a Democratic takeover in at least one chamber of congress is so that there will be at least some incentive for even a minimal amount of oversight. That Democratic majorities will be pretty ephemeral is pretty much a given, unless they can get their act together and form a clear, progressive agenda.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 1, 2006 11:07 PM
"the most egregious usurpation of civil liberties since the alien and sedition acts."
Really? Japanese internment wasn't as bad? Or how about Lincoln's outright elimination of Habeas Corpus?
These are not reasons for oversight, these are reasons for limiting the power of the federal government as a whole and devolving power back to the states and to the people.
Though I am curious to know how your civil rights have been personally curtailed. For myself, I haven't felt a single difference.
Posted by: RFTR | November 2, 2006 1:49 AM
Really? Japanese internment wasn't as bad? Or how about Lincoln's outright elimination of Habeas Corpus?
Apparently some people don't get the idea that hyperbole can be used as a literary device. Too bad, because I thought that my comments would be understood within the context of reality.
Yes, there have been many egregious usurpations during times of war. Does that make the current ones anymore acceptable? I really hope that no one is stupid enough to make such an argument.
These are not reasons for oversight, these are reasons for limiting the power of the federal government as a whole and devolving power back to the states and to the people.
So in other words, there should be no oversight because there are more noble political goals out there? Good job junior, apparently your understanding of political realities is matched by your understanding of literary devices. I happen to think there are lots of good arguments for lots of things, I also happen to realize that within the next election the likelihood of attaining such reforms is nil. The best thing I can hope for is a divided government. You can keep masturbating to fantasies of returning to some golden age of perfect decentralization and democracy, I'll masturbate to a realizable goal of not living under a one party state.
Though I am curious to know how your civil rights have been personally curtailed. For myself, I haven't felt a single difference.
And I'm sure a lot of people surveyed under COINTELPRO felt absolutely nothing right up until the point where they were being blackmailed because of their political dissent. And yes, I'm sure the Japanese felt absolutely nothing before they were being slandered as a "treasonous race" and thrown into internment camps for the duration of WWII. If you think it's a good idea to simply tolerate the legal elimination of our civil liberties to aid a war effort that the current executive insists will last at least a generation, then maybe you need to study more American history than your condescending bullshit post indicates you know.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 2, 2006 4:25 AM
Ah, yes, devolving political power back to the states. Then we can go back to the good old days of Jim Crow, abortions only for the rich, voting rights only for whites and perhaps only for males, blue laws and all the rest. Maybe even all the way back to a Civil War. Yes, political power in the hands of the states certainly has an admirable record.
And, just for that record, this comment contains the literary device known as irony.
Posted by: Mark | November 2, 2006 8:21 AM
Depends on how the vote shakes out. Democratic Party majorities in both houses would result in investigations by committees that almost certainly would result in a strong case for impeachment of the President and VP. Seems to me that would have an effect on the Pres vote in 2008, regardless of what the polls say now. Changes wrought by the Republican Party can be reversed, even if the DP is not as progressive as some would like.
Posted by: richard | November 2, 2006 8:34 AM