Democrats in power?

Though Republican fortunes seem to have picked up a bit from their mid-August lows, Democrats are still in a strong position to take control of the House of Representatives in the November elections.

Both Republicans and Democrats are using this possibility to motivate their bases and raise money. Democrats say they will use the power of the purse to force the Bush administration to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and the investigative power of House committees to issue subpoenas and compel testimony in order to get to the bottom of alleged administration wrongdoings.

Republicans note many of Congress’ most left-wing members would likely become committee chairmen because they are now the ranking minority members by virtue of seniority. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial pointed especially to black Democrats John Conyers of Michigan, who would likely take over the House Judiciary Committee, and Charles Rangel of New York, who would become chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

Republicans are trying to frighten the business community, which has been shifting some of its contributions to the Democrats. They forecast new waves of government regulation and antibusiness tax policies if the Democrats get control. At the same time, the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, has promised fiscal restraint if she becomes speaker of the House in January.

As I see it, neither the Republican nor the Democratic scenario is likely to emerge in a Democratic victory. There are many reasons.

(1) Everyone has to remember we don’t live in a parliamentary democracy. Control of one or even both houses of Congress does not confer much power in our system of government. George Bush will be president for another two years and can veto anything Democrats in Congress send him that would really harm the economy.

Republicans were deluded they could simply ram their agenda into law after they took control of Congress in 1994. But Bill Clinton’s veto pen effectively neutered them. So unless Democrats get a veto-proof majority in both the House and Senate, there is little reason to think much will change in policy except at the margin.

Democrats could be confrontational — hold up appropriations for, say, the Defense Department to get their way. But we know what happened when Newt Gingrich tried something like that on Medicare in 1995: Bill Clinton won, hands down.

The Clinton experience also shows how limited Congress’ investigating power is. Mr. Bush can easily stall any Democratic fishing expedition for documents or other proof of Republican malfeasance on the war or anything else. Mr. Clinton’s stalling tactics on Whitewater and other Republican investigations show the White House exactly how to do it.

(2) It is very unlikely Democrats will get control of both the House and Senate, and there isn’t much you can do with just one house. Ronald Reagan had to contend with a Democratic House for all eight years of his presidency, and it was not a serious hindrance to his ability to govern.

Further, Democratic control, if it happens, is likely to be won by the skin of the teeth. Effective control may rest with the few relatively conservative Democrats who have a record of cooperating with Republicans on many issues. In other words, the Democrats will have their hands full just keeping all their members on the reservation and preventing defections to the Republicans on key votes.

(3) Finally, the current Democratic leadership is not really up to leading a serious challenge to Mr. Bush and the Republicans. I don’t know any Republican who doesn’t give thanks every day that Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and Mrs. Pelosi are the Democratic leaders. They are so ineffective they really do half the Republicans’ job for them.

More than likely, not much of anything will change if the Democrats get control of the House or even if they get the Senate, too. Presidents seldom get anything much accomplished in their last two years anyway, and there is no reason to think Mr. Bush is an exception. There is no time left to do very much except try to clean up the unfinished business. That won’t change even if Republicans keep control.

It’s inevitable that over the next year attention increasingly will focus on the 2008 presidential election. Members of both parties will be looking to their nominees for leadership and direction. What will really matter is control of Congress in January 2009, when the next president is inaugurated. Between now and then, Congress will just be treading water regardless of party control.

Bruce Bartlett is a nationally syndicated columnist.