GOP warns against one-party rule

By: relawson
Published On: 10/26/2008 4:48:37 PM

And they have a point.  When the GOP ruled all three branches they really screwed this country up.  Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

I believe that when Democrats (most likely) control all three branches next year we have an obligation to not let our party become corrupted - as the Republicans did.

If we don't learn from the mistakes of Republicans 4-8 years from now we may see a shift in the other direction.

We will be a greater threat to ourselves than Republicans will.  What shall we do to prevent our own demise as a party?  First, pass serious campaign finance reform.  Second, President Obama must use the veto and take control of spending.  Finally, don't protect anyone amongst our ranks who is corrupt (Jefferson).  Meaningful ethics reforms must be implemented.

Congress has an all-time low approval rating.  I believe that Democrats have a chance to change that.  Let's not blow it.


Comments



I see this as a race against time . . . (JPTERP - 10/26/2008 5:09:28 PM)
The party in power always has a tendency to become complacent and corrupt.  In a way this seems inevitable.  

The role of big money in politics also tends to skew things in a direction away from the public interest.

Having said that, I am curious to see how 6 years of Democratic control of Congress and the White House stacks up against the GOP rule from 2000 to 2006.  The bar is already extremely low in that regard, but I think that the Dems have the chance to make some positive changes.  The Democratic party too is made up of a much wider range of interests than the GOP is, so that too could serve as a check against lurching too far against the public interest.  

In reference to campaign finance reform, I'd like to see a reduction in the donor limit for both candidates and political parties.  If the ceiling for a party is $5,000 versus $30,000+ that has the potential to force parties to broaden their base of support -- a limit of $1,000 for candidates would like have the same impact.  Disclosure of all donations too -- including small ones -- strikes me as something that should be done.  On balance though, I think the shift towards small dollar donations is likely to have a more positive impact in the quality of legislators and legislation than the move to have purely federal financed elections.  If ordinary voters have some more skin in the game than just tax dollars, that investment is likely to force voters to watch over their legislators more closely.

We may have a different attitude on spending.  I agree with Obama's idea that the goal should be to eliminate programs that don't work, and put more dollars behind ones that do.  

In order to put the country back on track it strikes me that we are going to need to make major public investments in new energy industries, conservation, infrastructure, health care, and education.  Putting the Clinton tax rates back into place -- or something that resembles them -- closing loopholes -- simplifying the tax code; and return to pay-go once the economy stabilizes strike me as necessary measures.