DEMS AND DEFICITS. I'm deeply sympathetic to criticizing Nancy Pelosi from the economic left, and to worries that Democrats have boxed themselves into a rhetorical corner by carrying on about the largely illusory dangers of moderate deficits. But my sense is that there's a real lack of sympathy for the fact that Congressional Democrats have no power. In recent weeks, I've heard complaints on everything from their insufficient attempts to end the war to their unwillingness to craft a maximally enforceable prescription drug bill to concerns about their focus on the deficit. There's no suggestion that any of these priorities would attract a presidential signature, or that a veto could be overturned, but even so, folks seem intent of forcing Democrats to act as if they had an ally in the White House even as such an approach would reveal the most vulnerable parts of the progressive agenda at a moment when they can't possibly pass. It's odd. As a general point, deficit reduction is a very useful tool for opposition parties. It's an economic critique that points directly towards constraint. So Newt Gingrich and Co. became obsessed with it when Clinton controlled the White House, even as the GOP's patron saint, Reagan, had blessed more red ink than just about any other president in history. When George W. Bush entered power, of course, deficit concerns were forgotten. And I see little reason Democrats will need to act any differently. Deficits may prove a useful rhetorical tool now, and later on, they can be deemphasized in favor of other priorities, just as the Republicans have been doing for decades. But for the moment, they're a necessary arrow in the quiver of the opposition party. And that is what Democrats, for all their recent successes, remain. --Ezra Klein
