Shadow Government

Josh Marshall notes that Bush is reconceptualizing the government along the lines of a parliamentary regime. I think that's exactly right (interestingly, such a reconceptualization was once one of Woodrow Wilson's pet ideas, much as Bush has taken over a lot of the ill-conceived foreign policy of the early Wilson, but I digress) and Democrats need to recognize the natural corollary. The role of a parliamentary opposition party is not to halt the government's initiatives, negotiate with the government's ministers, or, in any way, to impede or effect the progress of the government's agenda. Instead, the opposition's role is simply to lay out an alternate agenda, point-by-point, on the subjects that are raised in parliament while devising a platform on the basis of which to fight the next election. I think this is the path that the Democrats need to take.

There's much talk in the air right now of the need for the Democrats to get serious about blocking the most objectionable elements of the Bush agenda, but I don't think it's realistically possible. Someday, Bush may put something on the table that's sufficiently offensive to some group of moderate Republicans that they're inspired to get on the horn with Harry Reid and say, "hey, if you guys all hang together on this along with me, we can block it." If such a call is placed, the Democrats should, of course, answer the phone. But the call should not be expected, nor should the Democrats waste much time placing the converse call and canvassing moderates. Republican Senators and Representatives are capable of acting like individuals rather than the robotic slaves of Frist/Delay/Rove/Bush if and when they choose to, but so far they've given little indication that they have or will so choose, except for the purposes of offering the occassional juicy quote to a newspaperman. But kvetching in the elite media is not opposition, and Democrats shouldn't fool themselves into believing that Chuck Hagel or Susan Collins or Arlen Specter is going to ride to the rescue.

As I say, under the circumstances, the only viable path is opposition. Not obstruction, but opposition. To even try too hard at obstruction is to make it appear that Democrats have power that they do not, in fact, have. Participating in the system is a means of legitimizing it. It's not worth doing. Bush will, evidently, lay out some "broad principles" for the partial privatization of Social Security. Democrats won't be able to stop it, and ought to focus their energy on coming up with an alternative plan for Social Security that says something other than "hey -- let's not allow younger workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes" etc. Democrats should put the plan forward, do their best to explain it to people, not expect to get the opportunity to hold a vote on it, and prepare to lose -- not roll over, but lose -- when the vote is held on the Bush plan.

Bush's agenda, once implemented, will either be popular, or else it won't be. The Democratic alternative will either be clearly and compelling presented to the public, or else it won't be. Legislative machinations will prove a distraction from the main task.