Editorial: Electoral aftermath

November 15, 2006

It’s finally over. After months of mudslinging, hopeful predictions and impassioned speeches, the 2006 midterm elections have come and gone with the Democrats, as predicted, emerging as the victors.

While most Americans are pleased with the new direction our country seems to be moving in, we can’t help but be slightly critical of how successful the revamped House and Senate will be. Although the Democrats are now in the majority on Capitol Hill, any and all legislations they come up with can still be vetoed by the Republican president, George W. Bush.

It was encouraging to read reports of Bush pledging his support to the Democrats, saying in an article on CNN.com that the results of the election presented “a great opportunity for us to show the country that Republicans and Democrats are equally as patriotic and equally concerned about the future, and that we can work together.”

It isn’t surprising to see Bush greeting the Democrats with open arms as an attempt at gaining approval from a largely dissatisfied American public. However, one can only hope his claim to cooperate isn’t just an effort to mend fences with his critics.

Right now, the relationship between Bush and the Democrats is courteous and respectful. Bush has sent the message that he is eager to work with people whose fresh perspective on issues like the war in Iraq will improve conditions here and around the world. However, once these new leaders begin confronting Bush about his policies and drawing up plans to change many of them when they take over in January, their relationship may become a little strained. It is vital to the well-being of the country that Bush continues to be open to what the new Senate and House members propose.

However, a flexible and understanding attitude from Bush isn’t the only requirement for improving the state of the country. The elected Democrats also need to unite and listen to one another to formulate the plans that will bring to life all the promises they made during their campaigns.

All Democrats can agree that priority number one, when they begin their tenure in January, is to create a plan to end the war in Iraq. The war was an important issue in this election, and many voters based their decisions solely on the hope that whomever they elected would help bring the troops home. However, it is important to keep in mind that just because Democrats want to wrap up the conflict in Iraq in the near future, doesn’t necessarily mean they are able to agree on a plan to do so.

Many of the Democrats who were recently elected ran on the promise of bringing members of the military home immediately. Others would rather see the war die down gradually and wait until the end of the year to pull out troops. Specifically, last year Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha (12th district) called for a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq over the next six months. New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton voiced her disagreement with this plan, taking a more moderate position and calling for a gradual withdrawal, according to a 2005 article in the Washington Post.

In order for any troops to return from Iraq at any given time, a consensus must be reached, requiring Senate and House members to compromise their individual visions for an improved country in order to put the plans into action.

During the midterm elections, the Democrats ran on a campaign called “The Six for ’06.” This plan, detailed on the House Democrats’ Web site, lists the six national issues Democrats felt required the most attention. The list includes improving national security, as suggested by the 9/11 Commission; raising the minimum wage to $7.25; making college tuition more affordable; lowering gas prices; improving healthcare plans and fighting attempts to privatize Social Security while maintaining dignity for retirees.

The list sounds promising in theory, but attaining these goals is easier said than done. It isn’t difficult to point out what is wrong with the country. The challenge comes when a group of people must work together while planning and carrying out solutions for our country’s major problems.

Newly elected Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in an article in the New York Times, “The only way to move forward is with bipartisanship and openness, and to get some results.”

It is our hope that elected leaders both new and old, the men and women who will determine the fate of our country, will take these words to heart. It is absolutely integral to everyone, from the men and women fighting in Iraq to those who are trying to make things better here in America, that when our new leaders officially take over in January, Republicans and Democrats set aside their differences to turn our country around.