• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Tuesday’s election was a disaster – not only for Democrats, but for all Americans. Voters went to the polls, in record numbers in some districts, and somehow decided a unified Republican government is in our country’s best interests.

Many groups should share the blame. It should be placed on the Democratic Party’s message, or rather, its lack thereof, as well as the party’s lack of exciting candidates. Bush’s inflated approval ratings, mostly as a result of Sept. 11, 2001, are also responsible for creating coattails that pulled even the most unlikely Republicans into office.

Partisanship aside (for a moment), the concept of unified government is a bad idea. A one-party government allows the ruling party unchecked power to influence the country’s direction. The legislative branch is there to limit the president’s power and make it difficult for him to enact sweeping legislation. But how can the Senate do its job if its soon-to-be leader will be at the president’s beck and call?

The Democrats failed. In the middle of a recession, they let the Republicans control the debate. They did not present a cohesive or unified front against the aspects of Bush’s policies they should have challenged, like tax cuts or the war with Iraq. The Democrats thought the weak economy was an advantage for them. Well, it would have benefitted their party if they had only said something about it. Lack of party unity, exacerbated by the absence of any real party leader, propelled them to the worst losses suffered by an out-of-power party in years.

The imminent Republican takeover of the Senate has far-reaching implications, most importantly – judicial appointments. Until now, the Senate Judiciary Committee has managed to stop some of Bush’s most conservative and controversial nominees from making it to the Senate floor for a vote. Now, with the Senate changing hands, Democrats will no longer be able to ensure the quality of the nation’s judges.

Worst of all, there is talk of one or more Supreme Court justices retiring during Bush’s term. This means that the Republicans will have an easier time getting a conservative justice on the bench, tilting the court’s delicate balance, and leading to potentially devastating rulings. The lines between church and state could be erased. The rights of the disabled could be severely limited – and the list goes on. The effects of appointing extremely conservative judges would be far-reaching and will last for the next quarter century.

Just because Bush managed to hold onto high approval ratings, and people liked how he handled the war in Afghanistan, it does not mean that the same people support the rest of his agenda. Many voters have trouble separating emotions from intellectual decisions, thus Bush should be careful with how he uses his newfound power. When he first came into office, Bush acted like he had a mandate when he had nothing of the sort. It is scary to think what he’ll do with the support he got in this election.

As for now, we say goodbye to the moderation the Senate provided in the midst of a Republican-controlled Washington. And now we say hello to conservative-packed courts, threats to a woman’s right to choose, unprovoked war with Iraq, permanent tax cuts, an ineffective prescription drug bill, and much more.

Good luck, Americans.