The Dems won! What Do They Do Now?

So by now we all know that the Democrats won both houses of congress, Bush's approval rating has reached a new low (Newsweek has him at 31%), and people voted overwhelmingly for...well...something, right? People turned out to vote, in short, for change. For non-specific change, but change nonetheless. There was a mix of issues- Iraq, corruption, Katrina, deficit spending, the (while numerically good in some ways) still uncertain economy. People were not happy, and voted for the most part against the Republicans, rather than for the Democrats. Be honest, you may wish it wasn't, but you know it's true. Not too many people went to the polls and thought, "Gee, Iraq seems to be going pretty well, and I'm very proud of our response to Katrina, and it seems like the Bush administration is just so competent and on top of everything. However, I really want an increase in the minimum wage, and the personality of Harry Reid is just so appealing, that I think I'll vote Democratic."

Anyway, the Democrats woke up Wednesday morning and found themselves in charge. There are a few different strategies they can take while dealing with their newfound power, as well as with the President who still has that veto pen he's been so loathe to use. An interesting debate has developed at TNR on this part, with Peter Beinart arguing for obstructionism, Michelle Cottle for productive bipartisanship. I am with Michelle on this, except I would be a little more agressive than she is being. I think Peter has miscalculated what the public expects from the Dems- which is progress and at least some accomplishment. I also read a lot about what this strategems mean for 2008, and not a lot about what is best for the country. So what should they do?

Of course, they have not nearly enough votes to override a Bush veto, and hence this limits their options somewhat in passing their dream agenda. But this actually strenghens their 2008 position if they can combine some compromises to get achievement, while also forcing Bush to veto things and draw lines against them in the sand. Do they Republicans really want to run in 2008 as against the minimum wage? Against lobbying and ethics reform? Against a balanced budget? I think there are compromises to be made where they can be: immigration, education, et cetera. On the other hand, they would be best suited politically by sending up certain bills clean- without any controversial measures added on- for Bush to veto. This lets the public know exactly where the two parties stand, and serves both the country and the Democratic party well.