Politics It’s a Mandate, Stupid. Use It or Lose It.
posted by on November 30 at 9:25 AM
In my column today, I’ve got a report from the recent state House Democratic caucus meeting (held at the Sea-Tac Doubletree on Nov. 19). The Democratic legislators were advised by their leadership not to overreach. Democratic state House leaders feel they may lose power if they alienate voters with a sweeping agenda.
Of course, if you voted Democratic, that type of Catch-22 logic is maddening to hear about.
What’s the point of having power if you don’t use it? Use it or lose it, I say. I think voters will be more upset with the Democrats if the Democrats don’t get anything done, than if the Democrats actually pass some meaningful legislation. So go for it. And given all the recent pro-D vote counts around here (No estate tax repeal, No “property rights” initiative, No gas tax repeal, Yes renewable energy, 7 Dem pick-ups in the state House for a 62-36 advantage, and Cantwell by 56%), I’d roll the dice on doing something and, well, expecting voters to dig it.
And so, in my column, I admonish the Democratic leadership for advising their House members to tiptoe around the place.
However, I wanted to add something that I didn’t have the room to spell out in print.
It’s this: My admonishment may seem to contradict what I’ve said here on Slog about the national elections. That is, I believe the Democratic victory at the national level was the result of President Bush’s overreach—running his party of the cliff, and thus, alienating mainstream votters. Soooo, you may ask, why am I risking the same fate with the state House Democrats by advising them to push their agenda?
The answer is this: Judging from recent vote counts, there’s no evidence that people are going to be turned off by the Democratic agenda. In fact, the opposite is true. In other words, there’s a big difference between the status of Olympia’s Democrats today and Bush’s status after election 2004. In January 2005, Bush acted like he had a mandate, but he didn’t. He only beat Kerry by 51%. And remember, he actually lost the popular vote in 2000. You can’t run around playing Anna Wintour with shaky numbers like that.
Ahhh, but check this out: The Democrats cleaned up here in Washington state in 2006. For example, they posted numbers like 59%, 59%, 58%, 57%, and 67% in the used-to-be hotly contested eastside suburbs. They even knocked out a GOP Senator in Spokane’s suburbs by 54.5%. Meanwhile, GOP agenda items like the estate tax repeal and radically prioritizing “property rights” over the environment got trashed by 61% and 58% respectively.
And in the state’s only official statewide partisan contest, GOP candidate Mike McGavick didn’t even crack 40%. Again: He didn’t even crack 40%. It was Cantwell 56.8% to McGavick 39.9%. Ouch. Meanwhile, in the unofficial statewide partisan contest, incumbent Washington State Supreme Court Justice Susan Owens crushed a challenge from a hotly partisan GOP state Senator, Stephen Johnson, who was backed by the GOP business lobby—59% to 40%.
These are mandate numbers. This is a mandate. Use it or lose it.
I think the mandate is "don't do it". There is no constituency in this state for dramatic action on any topic, besides perhaps schools (funding and fixing the WASL). That's what got the Republicans' asses kicked; they were the ones proposing radical changes. Estate tax repeal, anyone?
I do think they have the political capital to pass a marriage bill, but it's going to be hard to get that moving, because there's an excellent chance that if they do it their majority will implode next time out. Do they have the balls to do it anyways?
"In MY column"
"and so, in MY column,'
"MY admonishment:"
The first job of tne new Legislature is to demonstrate that it can fix the most obvious problems without breaking the bank. That will take up most of this session.
The governor is running for re-election and has to inoculate the voters against the nmotion that she is a tax-and-spend wacko. The Democratic Legislature has a vested interest in her re-election. So that in itself would be a brake on the sweeping changes you say you want, but have failed to enumerate.
That is one reason why Seattle will be getting a nice new Viaduct. But I digress.
Numbers are only numbers and "mandate" means something different to whoever uses it, like "progressive." There's no evidence here, Josh, nor are you likely to provide it, that you are speaking for anyone besides yourself.
Oh, and it's "admonition," not "admonishment."
"In MY column"
"and so, in MY column,'
"MY admonishment:"
The first job of tne new Legislature is to demonstrate that it can fix the most obvious problems without breaking the bank. That will take up most of this session.
The governor is running for re-election and has to inoculate the voters against the nmotion that she is a tax-and-spend wacko. The Democratic Legislature has a vested interest in her re-election. So that in itself would be a brake on the sweeping changes you say you want, but have failed to enumerate.
That is one reason why Seattle will be getting a nice new Viaduct. But I digress.
Numbers are only numbers and "mandate" means something different to whoever uses it, like "progressive." There's no evidence here, Josh, nor are you likely to provide it, that you are speaking for anyone besides yourself.
Oh, and it's "admonition," not "admonishment."
"Meanwhile, in the unofficial statewide partisan contest, incumbent Washington State Supreme Court Justice Susan Owens crushed a challenge from a hotly partisan GOP state Senator, Stephen Johnson, who was backed by the GOP business lobby—59% to 40%.
"These are mandate numbers. This is a mandate. Use it or lose it."
I guess I miss your point here on the Supreme Court race. How could Owens' re-election possibly bear on what kind of legislation gets introduced this session?
Perhaps you think the legislature should enact some new laws forcing businesses to pay the union dues of employees (or something) because Owens will uphold it? It sounds like you are saying she and her "bretheren" will uphold liberal laws just because the Dems in Olympia want them . . . .
The way it is supposed to work is that judges uphold (or strike down) laws irrespective of which political party controls the executive and/or legislative branches.
Ivan: The governor is running for re-election and has to inoculate the voters against the nmotion that she is a tax-and-spend wacko. ... That is one reason why Seattle will be getting a nice new Viaduct. But I digress.
So spending $3 billion on a highway that doesn't even come close to making your top four highways in terms of regional significance is how you show you're not a tax-and-spend wacko? Meanwhile, one of the vastly more significant highways, 520, goes without funding. Now that's the kind of fiscal conservatism any highway builder can love.
I'd say three things:
1. There is a mandate. Yes, disasterous things (like the massive exemptions for certain special interests in B&O taxes) should be fixed.
2. People are sick and tired of intrusive arrogant government. So, this is NOT a license to run roughshod and cram everything down people's throats. Stay the heck out of our bedrooms and get rid of intrusive things, but don't imagine we want nannies.
3. Fiscal discipline is the watchword. And we MEANT it when we said we wanted more education dollars. Excuses won't matter. Just action.
Cressona, you lost, get over it.
Cressona, you lost, get over it.
Will in Seattle: Cressona, you lost, get over it.
Will, I must have missed that news story. Can you give me a link?
Cressona @ 5:
I hope you're sitting down when I break the sad news to you that the money to replace the Viaduct was appropriated in the last session.
Sorry for the double post, but Ivan is right.
Oh, so you mean this whole viaduct issue was already decided months ago, and all the debate that's been happening since then has been purely academic? I wasn't aware. My bad.
Cressona @ 12:
Please take a deep breath. The context for this thread is that Josh stated that the Legislature had a mandate. He didn't say to do what. I suggested that the Legislature might find it politic to exercise some fiscal restraint. You brought up spending $3 billion on Highway 99.
I reminded you that the $3 billion had been appropriated in the last session, by -- wait for it -- the previous Legislature.
So any fiscal restraint that this Legislature might exercise will not include that particular $3 billion in any event. In other words, the point that you raised does not apply to this Legislature.
Whether or not the whole viaduct issue is academic is another question altogether, and there is little need to rehash our respective positions here.
@12, @13 - it's amusing you don't understand how our system of government works, Cressona. Fed trumps State, State trumps County, County trumps City. Treaties trump Feds too.
Maybe you were sleeping during your civics classes?
"...The Democratic legislators were advised by their leadership not to overreach. Democratic state House leaders feel they may lose power if they alienate voters with a sweeping agenda."
Whoever these D House (so-called)leaders are...they should no longer be leading us -- the sorry no ball whimp ass motherfuckers. Geez this pisses me off!
What’s the point of having power if you don’t use it? Use it or lose it, I say.
That's what the Republicans in D.C. told themselves in 2000. That's why there's a Dem majority now. I think the voters just said: Use it wisely. Or else.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).