Thomas Ford examines how the Democrats became more Republican and US politics became static Eleven years ago George H Bush was riding the popularity of the 1991 Gulf War. A war in which American technology was to usher in a new era of "clean" and "tactically precise" wars. The relatively few casualties suffered by United States forces allowed Americans to enjoy an unprecedented sense of military superiority and security. This clean display of military might was a spectacular means of introducing the world to the end of the bipolar Cold War era and into the beginning of the new world order. This security and military might propelled the former president Bush to some of the highest popularity ratings ever seen by an American president. However, a relatively unknown politician from Arkansas with a scandalous past came from the edges of national politics to beat Bush in his quest for a second term. He won the election by focusing on two fronts: mobilising minority and politically excluded groups and the economy. "It's the economy, stupid" became the unofficial motto of the campaign. The lessons learned from the 1992 election cycle have shaded the strategies used by the Republicans and Democrats in the following elections. One of the most striking developments of the Clinton era was the Blue Dog Democrats. The Blue Dogs are a group of Democrats that are more centrist than the traditional liberal Democrat. On issues such as economic policy, debt reduction, and taxes they voted along Republican party lines and not Democratic. The relative success of these house members and Clinton's own centrist streak combined to shift democratic policy more to the centre during the 1990s. This trend continued as Clinton's presidency survived scandal after scandal and many Democrats sought to put space between themselves and Clinton. As Clinton left office, he left the Democrats with a political identity that was murky at best. Many Democrats came across as moderate Republicans, shunning the liberal traditions of the party. This trend of moving toward the middle continued in the 2002 election cycle. Historically, when the nation feels its security is at risk, voters will turn to the political realism of the Republican Party. The defense spending, support for military endeavours, and emphasis on an aggressive international policy over domestic social issues attract voters when there is a threat lurking in the darkness. George W Bush and the Republican Party have reaped the benefits of the post-11 September feeling of fear in the US. Bush is the only Republican president to gain seats in the House of Representatives during a mid-term election. The only two other presidents to perform this feat have been Democrats, Roosevelt in 1934 and Clinton in 1998. The 2002 election cycle saw the Republicans reaffirm their control of the House of Representatives. In the new session of Congress the Republicans will add five seats in the House of Representatives totaling a majority of 228 seats. One state has not finished its election for US Senate -- Louisiana. This is a historic moment for the Republican Party. It is very rare for one party to have a numerical majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate while holding the presidency. On the surface this gives Republicans control of the legislative and executive branches of government, which is an unusual concentration of power. But more importantly the "sweeping victory" that is being claimed by Republican leaders is not as definite as it sounds. The net gain of five seats in the House of Representatives will not change the tenor of house proceedings in the coming session. A simple majority in the house decides who runs committees and who establishes rules of debate. Since the majority has not changed, the ways and means of business in Congress will not change. This same numerical advantage will make significant changes in the Senate. After the 2000 election cycle the US Senate was evenly divided between the two major parties. The 2002 election cycle returns the numerical advantage to the Republicans. Majority power in the Senate gives the larger party the responsibility of chairing committees. Therefore, one of the most immediate effects of this election will be seen in the changing of committee chairs in the Senate. Party alignment does not guarantee a smooth session for President Bush. One of the Republican criticisms of his weak 2000 victory was that he did not create a swell of political support to bring in like- minded Republicans to Congress. The recruits into the House of Representatives and the US Senate that should have been elected with President Bush, would be considered now to ensure his policies work their way through committees intact. However, now Bush is dealing with more established Republicans, many of whom do not follow his policies wholeheartedly. Senators John McCain from Arizona and Richard Lugar from Indiana are examples of Republicans who openly disagree with Bush and will be chairing major committees in the 108th Congress. Lugar from Indiana will become the new chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Lugar has worked closely with Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, who is the current chairman of the committee, to limit and clearly define how the president could use military force in Iraq. The administration was not pleased with Biden's and Lugar's efforts to limit military force in Iraq to the sole purpose of disarmament, and making multilateral action preferable to sole US action. Senator McCain was a contestant for the Republican presidential nomination in the 2000 election cycle. He and Bush have clashed many times over the past two years, especially on the environment, campaign finance reform, and business regulation. Senator Grassely who will likely be the new Finance Committee Chairman has also disagreed with Bush over business issues as well. These senior Senators are not likely to concede too much to Bush as the 2004 election cycle begins now and both parties have a lot at stake in the next elections. Domestically this will provide a great challenge for Bush. Some of the most senior Democrats and Republicans will be seeking reelection and the next election cycle will include the presidency as well as the House of Representatives. There is a lot at stake and popularity ratings during times of conflict, or perceived threat, can deflate quickly. The recent changes in Democratic Party leadership suggest that the Democrats are preparing for battle. The party is looking to redefine itself and its strategy, perhaps in an effort to develop a more clear identity and strategy for Democratic politics. If the Democrats in the Senate become more aggressive, very little of the Bush agenda will survive unscathed. In the US Senate a majority of 60 seats is needed to guarantee passage of legislation. The Republicans are far from that majority and will have to compromise with the Democrats in order to move things through the Senate. The war against Iraq and the steady march to battle will not likely be effected by these elections. The president already has the authorisation to use force, so Congress has dealt its card.
