It's like WWI without mustard gas

Even though the battle is for Congress, no entity has more at stake in these elections than the Bush administration. If Democrats manage to win control of one or both houses of Congress, it will be seen as a major and final rebuke of a presidency that has faced massive public disapproval through most of its second term. Not only would it become instantly difficult for the Bush administration to achieve its policy goals during its final years in power, it would expose the administration to congressional investigations, which under Republican control have been rare and toothless. Want to know why Bill Clinton was plagued by constant scandals while his successor has been mostly scandal-free? It's not because Bush is a saint. It's because Clinton faced a hostile Congress, while Bush enjoyed a compliant one controlled by his allies.

The dynamic is somewhat like that of 1917. If you're not up on your World War I history, Germany maintained the geographic advantage, with defensive lines established deep into enemy territory. Yet its morale and resources had been sapped, and its capacity to continue the fight was lagging. The Republicans are in a similar position. They have control over both the House and Senate, and yet their support among the public has been deeply corroded. National Review recently published a story wondering whether GOP control of Congress was even worth protecting.

Democrats, meanwhile, see the November elections as their final chance. They were routed in 1994 (much as the French and Russians were in 1914) and have been slowly clawing back ever since. With public opinion at their backs, they see 2006 as their last, best chance to win back Congress.

Idealism vs. cynicism

One of the enduring debates about World War I is whether the participants genuinely believed in the grand principles they said they were fighting for, or whether it was all merely an exercise in propaganda. A similar debate could be had about the upcoming elections.

Thus far, the motivation on both sides is almost entirely negative. Democrats are not putting forward a positive agenda, but are merely arguing that the Republican Congress has been a rubber stamp for Bush's various fiascos, which is true. Republicans counter that if the Democrats take over, they'll have all sorts of left-liberals running committees and passing left-wing legislation. That's half-true: Some of the potential Democratic chairmen are pretty liberal -- Michigan's John Conyers Jr. would be likely to chair the House Judiciary Committee, for instance, and Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles would head the House Government Reform Committee -- but the Republican fear-mongering against the coming liberal "reign of terror" leaves out the fact that Democrats won't be able to accomplish much without Bush's signature.