Democratic supineness on the war

The Democrats were elected to narrow majorities in both houses of Congress to a large extent on anti-war sentiment, however Congress hasn't been able to cut off funding for the war.

A recap, in March-April 2007, Congress passed a war appropriations bill with a mandatory withdrawal timetable to end in August 2008 but it passed both houses with narrow majorities. The vote to override Bush's veto of it failed by a considerable margin. Congress then passed the funding without any timetables. In the House, 40% of the Democrats voted for the measure with no timetables; often for the reason that they didn't want to risk totally cutting off funding for the soldier in Iraq. Thus funding was provided until September.

The Senate's attempts to put through timetables later that year were constantly thwarted by Republican filibusters. As a result, further votes on funding were delayed until the convening of the 2nd session of the Congress, in 2008. Eventually, the Democrats conceded the issue to Bush, assessing that they didn't have the numbers to override a veto or to break a filibuster in the Senate.

Although this would seem to show them flouting the will of the American people, recent polls suggest that there isn't a popular supermajority in favor of ending the war any more than there is one in Congress. ABC's last poll had 55-41 tilted towards withdrawing US forces as opposed to keeping them there until civil order is restored. The latest NBC poll had 54-40 tilting towards victory in Iraq being not possible as opposed to possible. Finally, the latest CBS poll had 42% wanting "large numbers of US troops" there "Less than a year, 21% "One to two years" and only 20% "As long as it takes".

As to that impact on Congress's supineness. First, it takes more than one election cycle for a consistent popular sentiment to change the Senate given its staggered election schedule. Second, although said sentiment is enough to change the House, it doesn't appear to be strong enough to have created a veto-overriding supermajority (although it should change the party in the White House in 2008). This is an intentional part of the Constitutional design--requiring more than one election cycle (anticipating further Democratic gains in the Senate and the White House) to push the government.

This delay on the implementation of changes in popular sentiment into policy is also a function of the separation of powers. One of the intended results of that is that a change in the White House is often as necessary as a change in Congress for policies to be changed. Further, the Democrats can anticipate increased majorities in both houses.

It may also take another election for many of the incoming Democrats to obtain some extra boldness. There are 45 representatives who come from districts that voted for Bush in the last two elections. 22 of them are freshmen and likely looking over their shoulders. Longer term, this could actually be a good development if it represents the beginning of a long-term realignment. For example, three of Indiana's nine Representatives are exactly that type of freshmen. That this could be a harbinger of other things is shown in that Obama is actually competitive in polls in Indiana.

In a parliamentary system, the type of change in power that took place in 2006 or 1994 would've led to a new government. Not so here.