Wall Street Journal on Liberal Majorities

This is from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:

“If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

“Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all. . .

“Americans voting for ‘change’ should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.”

The rest of the article predicts massive expansions of government—expansions that most Americans probably haven’t bargained for. You’ll have to read the rest to see the particulars.

“A Liberal Supermajority” – Wall Street Journal


  • John


    You try to downplay it sometimes, but you are about as partisan as they come. Apart from your favorite two issues, is there really anything un-“Biblical” about this?

  • Jim Peet

    The tragedy is that the Republicans blew an opportunity to show themselves (I can say “ourselves” as I count myself as one) as fiscal conservatives. The government has grown well beyond the inflation rate over the last 8 years and the Republicans (yes President Bush!) have proven inept at fiscal responsibility.

    If McCain loses (and looking at the polls, it looks as if he will), the Republicans will be a minority party again. Perhaps we can find our voice as to what we believe in.

  • Paul

    When Darius has the most reasonable post of three, we are truly living in dangerous times.

    The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have two very big points in common:

    1) their straight up news reporting is the world’s standard for objective and well written news.

    2) Their punditry is written by the most partisan hacks in the universe. The idiots crying chicken little on the WSJ’s Op-Ed page are just as bad as being forced to read an endless Frank Rich column. (oh wait, they’re all pretty much endless…)

    Yeah, that whole denying DC residents the right to representation, that was GREAT work, Senate!

    Actually, that was a “two legs good, four legs bad” moment in our history if ever there was one. And that the Republicans are the ones patting themselves on the back for it proves how out of touch the Republican party is.

    (***NOTE*** I did NOT say that conservatives were out of touch. I said that the republican party is out of touch. Big difference)

  • Derek

    I didn’t see Denny make any of the comments you infer. Where did he say that anything referenced in this commentary was un-Biblical?

    I don’t see anything in the WSJ commentary that is surprising. Paul, the items outlined here are not wild or unrealistic scenarios at all.
    Democrats and more specifically their supporters at MoveOn.org and Daily Kos have been demanding legislation on the policies outlined here even with a Republican President. With a clean sweep on Nov 5, Obama, Pelosi and Reid will all have an overwhelming mandate from voters, their donors and supporters to get the job done.

    Interestingly, abortion, hate crime legislation (targeting those who speak against homosexuality), embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage weren’t mentioned in the article at all. The reality is, with the judges the Dems will be nominating to federal benches all over the country, we’re guaranteed to veer hard to the left on those issues as well. The judicial changes that will be ushered in by this next White House and Congress are by far the most concerning part of this very significant and historically important election.

    2009 is going to be a year of amazing change. That much is sure.

  • Don

    I agree this election could bring about a HUGE shift to the uber-liberal ideas that include a massive redistribution of wealth. Eventually the people figure out that tax plundering means everyone is worse off.

  • Ken

    “2009 is going to be a year of amazing change.”

    And the leadership of the church had better start equipping the saints, because most of them have no idea what is about to hit them.

  • John

    “No idea what is about to hit them”

    Why is it so common for their to be fear-mongering every time a democrat gets elected in to office? People were saying the same thing about Clinton…and we were just fine.

  • Paul

    Derek in #5 says,

    “the items outlined here are not wild or unrealistic scenarios at all.”

    I agree. But Republican/Conservative outrage against some of them IS. Any whining about DC getting representation on part of “original intent” republicans is nothing short of hypocrisy on such a large scale that it borders on treason.

    Things like prescription drug price ceilings and renegotiating mortgages aren’t bad things. They’re just not the bastion of the fiscal conservative. But, right now, maybe the US doesn’t need fiscal conservatives.

    And even the Wall Street Journal will tell you that the markets have done better under democratic presidents than they have under Republican ones (look it up, it’s true).

  • Ken

    Sorry, John. This is no ordinary Democratic adminstration about to be voted in. For all his faults, Bill Clinton is no Marxist. The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. Things which would have been unfathomable in 1992 are entirely plausible today.

    Had Hillary or someone like Bill Richardson gotten the nomination I would not be as concerned. But still, the prospect of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate and an enhanced Democratic majority in the House–well, let’s just say the first 100 days of an Obama administration could literally change the face of America.

  • Nathan


    So you think the huge exportation of technical knowledge, ballistic missile technology, and computer technology given to China (by allowing corporations to take their technology outside the US) beginning with the Clinton administration and then allowed to continue by the Bush administration have had no impacts on the state of the world?

    The effects of poor decisions don’t appear quickly all the time.

  • Nathan

    We speak about what a President’s job is on these posts much. The Consitution places him in the position of protecting the sovereignty of the United States as a primary function. Allowing our technology abroad (under the guise of free trade) is not always the best protection.

  • Brian (Another)


    1) [The NY Times’] straight up news reporting is the world’s standard for objective and well written news.

    I think there are many left leaning yet objective papers, but I think “objective” for the NY Times is a bit of a stretch, even more so considering that you say they essentially set the standard (well, perhaps they past tense set it. I don’t think they really follow that these days). I can’t comment on WSJ as I’m not a subscriber (though I’ve read a lot of good articles from them).

  • Darius

    The NYT hardly sets any standard anymore, and that’s why their readership is plummeting. By contrast, the WSJ is very objective outside of their editorial page.

  • Darius

    “But, right now, maybe the US doesn’t need fiscal conservatives.”

    What it needs is real fiscal conservatives. The last two presidents helped set up the housing market for failure. Deregulation was never the problem, it was encouraging people who couldn’t afford a house to buy one anyway.

  • Paul


    fine, bring in a R-E-A-L isolationist, fiscal conservative, America first, never catch me dead in anything built other than right here in the U S of A conservative.

    Oh, wait, you had your chance and you didn’t vote for him.

    “Deregulation was never the problem, it was encouraging people who couldn’t afford a house to buy one anyway.”

    Yes and no. The program that allowed the rules to be laxed for low income minority families to buy houses had a payback rate higher than the average joe (the plumber) mortgage payback rate.

    The problem is, the powers that be saw that and thought that because a poor family trying to buy a $70K house in Englewood worked, that a middle class family would be able to afford a $500K house with no down payment.


    The problem was greed from every direction.

  • Brittany

    I want to hear John’s original question (you know, the one that got ignored). What in particular is un-biblical about this (an activist government, I assume)? Is it a matter of politics or religion? I’m curious to hear your responses.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.