House Editorial: Defining the election
What the election ‘means’ will determine the next two years
Posted on November 13, 2006

For political junkies, last Tuesday was tantamount to the Super Bowl; friends and enemies gathered around the television, eyeing the “score” on the bottom of the screen and listening to talking heads of all stripes providing the requisite commentary.

And if Election Day is a sporting event, this one was a nail-biter. Even now, as the dust continues to settle, it is clear that something dramatic took place at the polls — the question that remains is what.

Some claim that the election was simply local constituencies choosing their representative on a local level. On the opposite side, others consider the election to be a complete referendum on the Bush administration’s tenure in office.

And then there are men like James Carville, on the far left corner of CNN’s newsroom, virtually chanting to himself “It’s the Iraq war, stupid.”

A mere 12 hours later, Donald Rumsfeld finds himself out of a job.

Clearly, President Bush has bought Carville’s rationale. If the losses on Election Day were due to widespread Republican corruption, it would have made sense to install improved accountability controls. If it was about the war in Iraq, it would make sense to fire the war’s poster child.

Such is the power of definition in politics; how the present and the past are defined has much to bear on the policy of the future. And if Democrats can see through their euphoria, it would behoove them to take good notes now. Many pundits have already made public note that many of the newly elected Democrats are categorically, though ambiguously, “socially conservative.” If that definition of the victors is accepted, congressional Democrats are going to have their work cut out for them.

Republicans spent their summer crusading on a number of “socially conservative” issues, such as constitutional amendments against gay marriage and flag burning — issues of which San Francisco representative and incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are none too fond.

If the Republicans, as the minority party, are able to keep their domestic agenda in the news, it will put these so-called “socially conservative” Democrats in quite a pickle. If they vote in line with their party, they are voting against their constituencies, whom the talking heads have said elected a “social conservative.” If they vote in line with their definition, their party will lose on every issue. Either way, the Republicans will have plenty of ammunition going into 2008.

It would behoove Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats to not let the losers define the winners. If Democrats drag their feet on this definitional issue, they very well might find themselves as the losers next time around.