June 27, 2006
Retaking the House Posted by Alexander Burns at 04:55 PM EST For the last few months, much media attention has focused on the potential consequences of the congressional elections in November. This attention will continue until the campaign season is over. I enjoy speculating about election results as much as the next political junkie, but something has been bothering me about the way newspapers and magazines are describing the election cycle currently underway. Many of them, from The New York Times to the Washington Times, have discussed the contingency of the Democrats “retaking control” of the House of Representatives. While it is certainly possible that Republicans will lose their majority in Congress’s lower chamber, I find it puzzling that so many commentators are analyzing the election in terms of the Democrats’ opportunity to “retake” or “win back” the House of Representatives. It has been more than a decade since Democrats lost their longtime hold on the House. If Republicans continue to retain the majority past the end of the 109th Congress, at what point will the Democrats have to simply “win” or “seize” power? Twelve years after the 1994 elections, why do we still discuss congressional politics as though G.O.P. control is some kind of temporary condition? One possible reason for this is that, in spite of the Republicans’ continuing power, a fairly high proportion of Democratic representatives first came to Washington in the days of Democratic control. By my rough count, approximately 95 members of the Democrats’ 203-member caucus were elected in 1992 or earlier. This number includes congressmen like John Dingell, the longest-serving member in history, who joined the House after Eisenhower’s first midterm elections. For a man like Dingell, the years since Newt Gingrich became speaker comprise a fairly small portion of a House career otherwise characterized by Democratic preeminence. Dingell’s is an exceptionally long career, but there are more than a few others like it. Even with this explanation, however, the terminology used in reference to the midterm election does a disservice to both parties. It tricks Democrats into thinking that they are still considered the natural governing party, when the American people are far from convinced of that. And it deludes Republicans into imagining that they are still an insurgent minority, preventing them from fully becoming a functional and responsible majority.
| 
