In the last few months, and certainly in the weeks since the Terri Schiavo fiasco on Capitol Hill, Democrats have been making steady strides by doing nothing. As the Republicans score points against themselves on issue after issue, Democrats have touted the idea that doing nothing is a more reasonable alternative to whatever the GOP is suggesting. And in a collapse, at least momentary, of the old notion that something always beats nothing, this approach seems to be working for them. It is a strategy that began with the president's private-accounts solution to Social Security solvency and may reach its apogee with filibuster reform, or the nuclear option.
Some of what's in play here is unity of purpose. With little else to agree on, Democrats have agreed to be united. They may not be able to agree on how to solve the problems at hand, but they can readily agree to be against the GOP's proposed solutions.
And so they have become the “no” party: No to private accounts. No to the intervention in the Schiavo case. No to the energy bill. No to changing the Senate rules on filibustering judges. No to changing the rules to protect Tom DeLay. And, maybe most notably, no to John Bolton as United Nations ambassador.
The lack of an affirmative agenda has been noted by many, and assessed as a flawed and fatal strategy. DeLay, for example, has blamed his troubles not just on Democrats but on Democrats devoid of ideas and without an agenda. He and his supporters discern a vast left-wing conspiracy funded by blue-state dollars out to get him and the GOP in general, and to them the reason is clear: “… because House Democrats have no ideas, no agenda, and no solutions," DeLay spokesman Dan Allen told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Maria Recio.
Democrats, who in the past may have had too many ideas, would disagree, of course, but in fact they've finally come to grips with their “inner no,” and it has freed them from the pretense that they actually have a hand in governing the country. They have become the opposition party, and they are opposing -- and leaving the proposing to -- the other side. They propose, we oppose, you decide.
DeLay's ethics troubles, plus rising gas prices, help, and the giant Republican miscue on Schiavo was gift from the political gods. Democrats are now feeling confident enough that they are already reminding themselves not to get cocky. “This is a gloat-free zone up here,” says one senior Senate aide.
Yet they are so buoyed by the effectiveness of their “let the Republicans be Republicans” strategy that some are taking another look at the nuclear option and thinking: “Go ahead. Try it.”
“I think it's all about the overreach,” says one former Senate staffer turned media guru. “This is a perfect example of the Republican overreach. You have Terri Schiavo, you have Tom DeLay, and now you have this iron fist trying to change 200 years of Senate tradition.” This plays right into the hands of the Democrats, she says, and that's exactly what they need going into the next election cycle.
But the party already thinks it's on to something. Senate Democrats have a “question of the day on Social Security.” House Democrats are unlikely to allow the Ethics Committee to organize, despite the recent offer of a compromise, unless the Republicans return to the old rules of the last Congress. And that means that DeLay, who says he is eager to plead his case to the committee, will have to find some other way to resolve his problems.
Democrats have also begun using a new series of pejoratives to describe the governing party, trying to capitalize on the damage the GOP inflicted on itself in the Schiavo case: arrogant, extreme, radical. “Radical right-wing Republicans -- they are the new base of the party,” says Senator Debbie Stabenow. “We need responsible Republicans to rise up and take back our institutions,” says Harry Reid.
Which bring us to Bolton, the one case where Democrats have not been playing possum. On April 19, the usually unflappable Dick Lugar, Republican of Indiana, was flapping. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was about to force a vote on the Bolton nomination against the wishes of the Democrats who were pleading for more time to investigate new charges that Bolton was a hothead. Lugar was flabbergasted, but knew that he had 10 Republican votes to the Democrats' eight. In the midst of the Democrats' protests, Ohio's George Voinovich piped up to say that he wasn't so sure about Bolton and was uncomfortable voting that day. "I think one's interpersonal skills and their relationship with their fellow man is a very important ingredient in anyone that works for me,” Voinovich said. Suddenly Lugar was looking at a tied vote, which would keep the nomination from going to the floor. Lugar seemed stunned.
Then Lincoln Chafee, the moderate Rhode Island Republican, piled on a little bit, asking Lugar if, in light of Voinovich's concerns, he wanted to change his mind about forcing the vote. In the midst of a long apologia for having missed both hearings on Bolton (because of his duties as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety), Voinovich completely changed the dynamic of what looked to be a sure confirmation of Bolton. "I've heard enough today that I don't feel comfortable about voting for Mr. Bolton,” Voinovich said. He had heard enough from Democrats, mostly Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, who had made the case that Bolton was not diplomatic enough to be the nation's top diplomat to the United Nations. They thought they were making an honest but ultimately futile case because the votes were against them. Then came the Voinovich epiphany. The vote was postponed for two weeks, but that's two more weeks of twisting in the wind for Bolton.
Chafee, who had once been the Dems' best hope for stopping Bolton, seemed to be back on the fence. "The dynamic has changed," Chafee said. "A lot of reservations surfaced today. It's a new day."
And maybe for the Democrats as well. "The passion on the other side on this -- I don't think it's political," Voinovich said. So the Democrats may be becoming not just the opposition but the principled opposition. A new day, indeed.
Terence Samuel is the chief congressional correspondent for U.S. News & World Report. His column about politics appears each week in the Prospect's online edition.
