Sitting, Waiting, Wishing

As a great man once said, democracy is about making losers. That great man, in case you’re wondering, was Dr. Michael Tofias, who I now expect will grade this entry preferentially. The idea of “making losers” is one inherent in the principles of democracy, and more particularly, American democracy. In a winner-take-all electoral system, there is bound to be equally as many winners as losers. Following each election cycle, this principle manifests itself in our nation’s legislative body, resulting in majority and minority parties in both houses of Congress.

One then begins to wonder, what is the role of the minority party in these situations? The answer to that lies within the primary objective of each party, and that is to control the legislature. When a party is in the minority, the most it can really do is maneuver and wait. Because each party’s chief desire is to have elected the most possible representatives from their camp, a minority party often spends its time in the minority to try to change their situation come the next election cycle. This focus was strikingly apparent in the two years between the election of Democrat Bill Clinton to the office of President in 1992, and the Republicans’ takeover of Congress in 1994. During that period, House Minority Whip, Newt Gingrich, engineered a complex plan of attack for gaining control of the body. By recruiting viable candidates and instructing the professional behaviors of House and Senate Republicans, as well as initiating the Republican “Contract with America,” Gingrich was able to garner the party unprecedented success in the 1994 Congressional elections.

This sort of strategizing is common, if not necessary, amongst the legislature’s minority party. Because it is extremely difficult to pass legislation originated by the minority party, it is only logical for the minority to construct a plan for becoming the majority. This is the chief concern of all minority parties. Optimal conditions for successfully carrying out these strategies exist when the majority party is perceived as ineffective by the electorate. This was the case in the Democrats’ success in the 2006 Congressional elections. Because the majority party, the Republicans, were so closely identified with the Republican President, his failings were often associated with the ineffectiveness of the controlling party. This led to an overwhelming string of electoral successes for Congressional Democrats. It can also be said, however, that Democratic strategizing by Representatives such as Rahm Emanuel played a crucial role in this “coup.”

Ultimately, the role of a minority party is to work toward a situation in which they are no longer the minority. Though it may seem pointless for Congressional Republicans to even report to work in an arena controlled solely by the Democratic legislative machine, it is in fact absolutely essential that they do so. By presenting themselves as a strong oppositional force to the Democratic agenda, regardless of how factually accurate that image may be, the minority party sets themselves up for the time when Americans grow tired and desire a change. Republicans must appear to be doing all they can to hinder the influence of Congressional Democrats. Only once they have demonstrated this to the ever-fickle electorate will they be able to mount a legitimate attempt at regaining control of Congress.