Regarding numerous forecasts, including Daniel Henninger’s April 22 Wall Street Journal piece Democrats at the Edge of the Cliff, that Congressional Democrats have angered Americans to the point of bringing on Armageddon at the polls in November, one question keeps recurring. Why? Why would power-hungry career politicians ally themselves so closely with the radical statist policies of President Obama and press forward with health care reform and other matters that seem highly toxic to their favorability ratings?
I have yet to read or hear a satisfying explanation for this.
The Democratic Party leaders are intelligent people. (No chortling.) They can read opinion polls. They know the meaning of $20 trillion. Surely, they are fully aware of the anger and fear that they are engendering in the American electorate. So why rub your chin with the muzzle of a loaded gun?
I can understand President Obama’s persistence. As a socialist ideologue he seems hell-bent on breaking free-market capitalism and making Wall Street and Main Street wards of the state. Damn the Founders, full speed ahead. But what of the Democrats in Congress? Like career politicians of all stripes, they cherish their power and longevity above most everything else. Why would they put their careers and their party at such great risk?
I can’t help thinking that the Democrats have their eye on a prize so big as to make the extraordinary risk worth taking. Where are the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants who presumably would qualify for ObamaCare and become eligible to vote under amnesty, aka Democrat-sponsored immigration reform? Are they distributed across enough key states to tip the 2012 Congressional and presidential elections? If yes, then the Democrats’ talk of cap and trade and banking reform as legislative priorities might be a smoke screen.
Assume Republicans regain the House after the November 2010 elections and the Democrats lose a few seats in the Senate. So long as the Senate Democrats can uphold a presidential veto, then the Republicans will not be able to repeal any law enacted between now and the moment the next Congress is seated in January 2011.
Before that moment arrives, the Democrats could ram through amnesty. They certainly have no compunction about voting on Christmas Eve or using the budget reconciliation process to enact history-bending legislation. They broached deem-and-pass. They let it be known that the seating of Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown could be delayed so as to pass ObamaCare.
With a new amnesty law passed by Congress, signed by the President, and protected from repeal by a veto, the Democrats would have nearly two years — until the presidential and Congressional elections of 2012 — to get 5 million, 8 million, 12 million of America’s deeply grateful new citizens registered to vote and tutored in group identity politics, class warfare, and victimology.
I’ve read that 5 million new voters helped to put Barack Obama in the White House. Wouldn’t 10 million or 12 million newly registered Democrats help to sweep Obama and the Democrats back to power in 2012? Couldn’t these new citizens provide the Democratic Party with a new, blockbuster Latino core, which by virtue of its Catholic, pro-life make-up grow over time, perhaps at rates faster than other demographic segments, including conservatives, moderates, independents, etc.?
If this is possible, then independent voters might become as impotent in ending the Democrats’ mad rush to legislate utopia as Sen. Brown was in stopping ObamaCare. The Tea Party activists could walk the lawns and boulevards of Capitol Hill, picking up their litter, smiling at the police and crossing with the light until the orthopedic inserts fell out of their shoes and they wouldn’t change one bloody thing. In this way, couldn’t the Democrats become the permanent majority and the Republicans the permanent minority for the remainder of the 21st century?
Now that might be something the Congressional Democrats would risk everything to obtain.
Tell me why I’m wrong about this.