Another party, but the same songs

Second, party discipline in Congress, especially in the Senate and among Democrats is never close 100 percent. On any piece of legislation that comes to a vote, there are always members who defy the leadership of their respective parties and vote with the opposition. Democratic leaders of both houses also have a challenge holding their members together, because many of the new Democratic representatives and senators who defeated incumbent Republicans, are more conservative and centrist in their political leanings than the majority of their Democratic peers. Indeed, the Democratic party recruited these moderate Democrats with the expectation that they would fair better against incumbent Republicans than Democrats with a more liberal orientation.

They were right. By moving towards the political center, Democrats captured two-thirds of those voters who do not identify with either party but regard themselves as independents. Because independents are now one-third of all voters, this strategy was the key to victory. Members of the new and diverse Democratic majority, however, will have to compromise with each other as well as with Bush if they are to pass their party’s legislative agenda into law.

Apart from a repudiation of Bush and the Republican party, this was a centerist election not a Democratic one. Democrats aggressively contested the election by being “against Bush”, the Iraq war, and against Republican policies in general without specifying the details what policies they as Democrats were for.

There are, however, a small number of issues on which nearly all Democrats and even some Republicans agree. These include raising the minimum wage, and an order to the executive branch that it negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs with the American pharmaceutical industry to reduce the cost of federal health programs as well as legislation to permit state governments to do the same. Democrats have also vowed to clean up corruption in Congress itself by banning its members from receiving favors and gifts from lobbyists in return for budget earmarks and other special legislation. Several Republican members of Congress and their staff were convicted or indicted for engaging in these corrupt practices before the elections. Forty percent of Americans stated that corruption in government was an important issue in this election—about the same as the number that mentioned Iraq. Republicans will have difficulty opposing any of these popular reforms lest they leave themselves open to renewed attacks by Democrats on this issue.

Democrats are also unlikely to extend Bush’s vaunted tax cuts, due to expire in 2010, without raising the rate of taxation on the top 1-2 percent of American incomes. The President and his party will have to compromise on the future of tax legislation if they are to sustain one of their pet programs. Last, but not least, Democrats are likely to insist on the staged withdrawal of American troops from Iraq beginning by the end of 2007 if not sooner. For Bush, the promise for “victory” in Iraq is no longer an option.

What does the Democratic victory mean for India? Will US policy towards India change in any significant way? The answer is “no” because the same underlying forces that have led to the steady warming of relations between India and the United States since the early 1990s were not altered by the election. India’s rapid rate of economic development which has in turn led to increases in both trade and investment between the two countries, is likely to continue.

Democrats may block the renewal of President Bush’s authority to negotiate new trade legislation, and try to enact other measures to stop American companies from outsourcing work to other countries. For example, the new Democratic majorities, responding to demands by US trades unions, may try to prevent or slow American companies from outsourcing operations, and thus American jobs, to Indian firms that provide these services at lower cost.

Democrats are also likely to continue the high subsidies the US government pays to producers of agricultural products thus making these products artificially cheap on the Indian market and discouraging Indian producers and the producers of agricultural products in other developing countries. The costs of such subsidies, however, contributes to the US budget deficit and are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.

It is also possible that Democrats in the Senate will block ratification of President Bush’s agreement to provide India with fuel and technology for its nuclear power industry without further concessions by India with respect to the non-proliferation of fissionable materials. Sales of US military equipment to India, however, are unlikely to be affected.

The bottom line is that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress admire India as the world’s post populous democracy. More than 200 members of Congress now belong to the informal Indian caucus, a group that supports India and calls for strong US-India relations. With the Cold War receding into history, and Americans wary about the rise of China and the spread of terrorism from Pakistan, India is increasingly viewed as a strategic partner by Democrats and Republicans alike. The Democratic victory thus has great significance for the course of US domestic politics and for US policy in Iraq. For India, little will change.

The writer is professor emeritus, Political Science at the University of Iowa and senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.