Midterms

Many of my friends are downright gleeful about the outcome of the mid-term elections. Some are registered Democrats who vote a straight party line (how can thinking people do that?), so of course they're happy. But even those of independent persuasion act as if they've steered our country onto a new course. I'm betting we've just jumped out of a Ford and into a Chevy, and have resumed driving down the same road.

Lemme try to persuade myself otherwise.

Good leaders can emerge from the two-party system. Harry Truman was a devoted Democrat who came to national politics by way of the Missouri political machine. Ironically, he was a student of world history who revered democracy. By most accounts he did good things for our country and for the world.

The two parties can effect change. In 1994 the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. They had made a list of specific things they'd accomplish in the bargain. They delivered on one promise which most people could agree was good: they balanced the Federal budget.

(Granted, the budget didn't stay in balance long enough to make a dent in the national debt, and we're still going to be in a world of hurt when the baby boomers retire. But as a frustrated member of the Concord Coalition I was encouraged.)

It is still possible to choose representatives, not brands. From Doc Searls:

"Some of the best evidence of voter independence comes from the Lieberman election in Connecticut. Forget how you feel about the candidate. Look at what the voters did. They elected an independent candidate who had lost the primary of the party that 'won' the national race for seats in Congress. Something independent was happening there. It was bigger, and deeper, than partisanship. As Dave puts it, we've never had so much power."

Hm. Feeling a little better... Still, I'm going to set my expectations low. If this congress can weaken the Military Commissions Act of 2006 I'll call the midterms a success.