TheSequitur.com Editorial Board
March 22, 2007

The morning of Nov. 8, millions of Americans woke to a sense of renewed hope. They had sent a message to our legislators: We do not approve of what you did during the 109th Congress, and we want some new people to stand up and do the job we elect them to do.

Many even felt successful; through the constitutional right to elect our representatives, the people – for once – actually sent such a message to Washington. It was proof that democracy works. At least, that’s the way many people saw it.

But that air of hope now is gone, and Americans are left with the cold, hard fact that the effectiveness of this Congress might not be exactly what the voters had in mind in November.
Americans are left with the cold, hard fact that the effectiveness of this Congress might not be exactly what the voters had in mind in November.
The House and Senate both passed a bill that would raise the minimum wage and the House has passed stem cell research legislation. The Democratic Party's 100-hour plan also outlined legislation that included cutting student loan interest rates in half, allowing governmental interaction with pharmaceutical companies and ending large tax subsidies for oil companies.

Congress apparently is elevating domestic issues championed by so many for so long, and we like what we see. But it is widely agreed that the November upset was a referendum on Bush’s reckless foreign policy – namely, the Iraq War.

As of today, lawmakers have had no significant impact on either the Iraq issue or the so-called war on terror. While the non-binding resolution passed several weeks ago was a nice symbolic gesture, it does nothing to advance either the anti-war agenda or a better way to succeed in the conflict than that offered by the president.

In fact, such meaningless action simply allows politicians to wash their hands of the difficult decision to take a stand against this administration and its wildly deviant constitutional worldview.

But should we have expected the new Congress to make such drastic steps in changing policy?Citizens and lawmakers alike have called on lawmakers to form a cohesive plan for getting out of Iraq, yet neither party can coalesce on the issue. Certainly the Republicans had their chance – and failed – when they held Congress. Why can’t the Democrats step up to the plate?  

But should we have expected the new Congress to make such drastic steps in changing policy? After all, American government hinges on a system of checks and balances, which equalizes the power of the three branches of government. Perhaps it is childish of the American people to think that, by changing the balance of power in Congress, we can effect a change in overall government that could significantly impact foreign policy.

Hell, this Congress is scared of comedian/pundit Stephen Colbert, who arguably helped make possible the new Capitol Hill seating arrangements. Of course our new representatives won’t stand up – like heroes – to the Bush administration when it comes to core constitutional issues.   

Hell, this Congress is scared of comedian/pundit Stephen Colbert...While the ability of voters to impact foreign policy is a nice thought, it unfortunately seems that nowadays it just isn't realistic. A ballot is not a magic bullet that will eliminate policies the majority views as wrong or corrupt. Alas, maybe a vote is just that—a vote. Wait two years. Rinse. Repeat.

Americans should be thankful we live in a country where voting is a right instead of a privilege. But if the 110th Congress cannot make great strides on the issues upon which its members campaigned, it is doubtful that voters will be able to maintain the same level of hope in future elections as they had on November 7, 2006.

And in the United States, hope is valued in ballots – even if they are mere votes.