Democratic Party Takes House and Senate: Professors comment on what Congress’ shift may mean

In the recent midterm elections, the Democratic Party picked up enough seats to control both houses of Congress. To help sort through what this might mean for the country, The Miscellany News asked three professors at Vassar to comment on certain pressing topics for the nation today. Steve Rock, Professor of Political Science, writes about international politics. Rock is the author of Appeasement in International Politics and teaches courses on international politics, U.S. foreign policy, and theories of war and peace. Richard Born, Professor of Political Science, teaches courses on the American Congress, and in an interview explained probable Democratic and Republican strategies, and addressed both parties’ chances in 2008. Robert Brigham, Professor of History, author of Is Iraq Another Vietnam? teaches the history of American foreign relations and reflected on possible consequences this election may have in the field of foreign policy and the U.N. —Compiled by John Palmer, Contributing Editor

International Politics
Steve Rock, Professor of Political Science

Miscellany News: Do you think that the Democratic majority in Congress might signal a shift in American foreign relations? If so, what shape might this change take?
Steve Rock: There will be a policy shift in Iraq, though exactly what form it will take is unclear. The report and recommendations of the Iraq study group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton may be highly influential. My guess is that we will see some kind of phased withdrawal of U.S. forces over the next several years. An explicit timetable is possible, but as long as the administration remains opposed, it’s unlikely. I also suspect that more attention will be devoted to Afghanistan, where the situation is deteriorating and the Taliban are staging a major comeback. Afghanistan is much more central to the so-called war on terror than Iraq ever was.

It is fascinating to see officials from the administration of George H. W. Bush—e.g., James Baker, Robert Gates—being brought back into positions of power and influence, in part as a result of the Republicans’ electoral defeat. The foreign policy style of these people was quite different from the style of the present administration, and their return may signal that U.S. foreign policy will become less ambitious, less confrontational, and more oriented toward negotiation, even with enemies of the United States. It would not surprise me, for example, if the administration showed a much greater willingness to engage in talks with Syria and Iran, as well as with North Korea.

MN: What does Democratic control of Congress mean for foreign relations—the war in Iraq, and the U.S.’s role in the U.N. in particular?
SR: The biggest change will be increased oversight of the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. The Republican Congress largely abdicated its responsibility in this area, allowing the Bush administration to do pretty much whatever it wanted. A Democratic Congress will conduct investigations and hold hearings on foreign policy issues, forcing administration officials to explain and justify their policies. The result will be an increase in the amount of information available to the American public, which, from the standpoint of democracy, is a good thing.

It now appears almost certain that John Bolton will not be confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. My guess is that the Bush administration’s approach to the U.N. and to relations with other countries will change in tone—it’s likely to be less high-handed and confrontational—but I don’t expect any major changes in substance.

Domestic Politics
Richard Born, Professor of Political Science

MN: Do you think that Democratic success in the election should be attributed mostly to dissatisfaction with the Republican Party and President Bush, or can it be attributed also to seeing the Democrats as having a positive vision for America?
Richard Born: It’s very much a repudiation of George Bush. It’s not very much at all an affirmative vote in favor of the Democratic Party…[it’s just that] the Republicans were seen in a more negative light. It’s not the kind of a victory where Democrats were putting forth positions that [voters agreed with]…it’s [about voters] turning off the Republicans. There’s nothing particularly unique in this effect...When you have an election like that of ’94, it wasn’t particularly due to the fact that people had turned on to Republican positions on issues...That’s just the way it works: you benefit when you’re the out-party and the in-party is unpopular for any reason.

MN: What do you think the first actions of this newly-elected Congress will be?
RB: They have a platform of votes that they want to take within the first 100 days, and I suppose the very first thing they’re going to be dealing with is raising the minimum wage. It’s a very popular issue, and it’s long overdue. Some other things are…repealing some of the tax breaks with the oil companies, which is also popular, and something in the educational realm like expanding the college tuition assistance. None of these are major, but they are popular proposals. In general, the Democrats are going to be very incremental.

MN: Does this election have any bearing on either the Republicans’ or the Democrats’ chances for the presidency?
RB: The Republicans, in terms of their election situation, are in a really difficult bind. The conventional wisdom now is that [voters] were repudiating the right-wing Republican party. Independents in the electorate went quite substantially Democratic…Independent voters switched pretty heavily Democratic from the way they voted in 2004. The dilemma the Republican Party faces is that a lot of the moderates were kicked out of Congress. You’ve got surviving Republicans in both houses, particularly the House, that are very right-wing. Add on the fact that it’s not definite that the electorate was in fact repudiating right-wing Republican stance. It’s not clear from the evidence I’ve seen so far that the election is a repudiation [of conservativism]...In seven states, gay marriage initiatives passed on the ballot. There was an affirmative action proposal on the ballot in Michigan, and that ban on affirmative action passed very strongly, 58–42. So from this kind of evidence, there’s a suggestion that this was not a repudiation of conservativism, but a repudiation of George Bush. If that’s what the Republicans take out of this election—that conservativism is as strong as it always was—then that suggests that Republicans aren’t going to be inclined to bend over to the center to find a nominee in 2008.

Foreign Relations
Robert Brigham, Professor of History

MN: What is the most pressing problem in American foreign relations, and do you think the change in control of Congress can help fix it? If so, how?
Bob Brigham: I think Democratic control of the Congress does present an opportunity for change in U.S. foreign policy, but I would be surprised if we see a drastic change in the framework for American foreign relations. Obviously, the most pressing problem is the war in Iraq. I believe that the new Congress will hold hearings on the war and that it will wait patiently until the Baker report on Iraq is distributed. I think it is then likely that the United States will use an old-fashioned balance of power diplomacy to extricate itself from Iraq. There will probably be a draw-down of U.S. troops, and a multi-national force put in place to provide regional stability. It is also quite likely that the U.S. will have to bring in regional states to broker the peace. China could be the wild card in a global approach to regional stability in the Middle East.

It is likely that this path would be taken with or without Democratic control of the Congress. There is simply too much hostility in all corners to the current U.S. policy in Iraq.

One major difference I think the Democratic Congress will make, however, is the way it approaches other foreign policy problems. It seems clear to me that the Republican Congress ignored several key problems (other than the war on terror) that may have larger impact on global relations over the long run. For example, the Republican Congress paid little attention to the growing problem of international security and global health. Over the past five years, there has been a rapid increase in infectious disease globally. These pandemics...HIV/AIDS, SARS, the bird flu...can deplete a nation’s resources and decimate its population, causing serious international security concerns. The U.S. needs to take the lead in supporting efforts through international agencies to combat these growing problems from a human rights and international security perspective. I suspect that a Democratic Congress will be more attentive to these global issues.