IchabodPlain
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,252
Is it a smart (or good) strategy for the controlling party to reform programs/institutions in ways they would traditionally campaign against?
I'm thinking, for example, when Clinton reformed welfare programs in the mid-90s. Though making cuts to welfare may have been traditionally something Democrats opposed, this hugely affected Republicans who were running on the issue, and had the benefit of reforming the system in a way that was most palatable for the reformer.
Taking the issue of welfare away from Republicans hurt them during successive election years. This can be seen in the 1998 house election where there was a five seat swing in favor of the Democrats and the 2000 senate election where Democrats picked up four seats (the '98 senate election had no overall change). It also made democrats seem active on issues like "wasteful government spending" and was a reform most likely to curry favor from the opposing party. Lastly, it had the benefit of reforming the system in a way that suited Democrats.
In a contrasting example, Republicans did not take the opportunity to reform health-care during their time of power over the last decade or so. This enabled the issue to intensify, become the foremost plank in Democrat campaigns, and created an image of "do nothing" Republicans on the issue of health reform.
So, smart policy? Good policy? Thoughts/Comments?
I'm thinking, for example, when Clinton reformed welfare programs in the mid-90s. Though making cuts to welfare may have been traditionally something Democrats opposed, this hugely affected Republicans who were running on the issue, and had the benefit of reforming the system in a way that was most palatable for the reformer.
Taking the issue of welfare away from Republicans hurt them during successive election years. This can be seen in the 1998 house election where there was a five seat swing in favor of the Democrats and the 2000 senate election where Democrats picked up four seats (the '98 senate election had no overall change). It also made democrats seem active on issues like "wasteful government spending" and was a reform most likely to curry favor from the opposing party. Lastly, it had the benefit of reforming the system in a way that suited Democrats.
In a contrasting example, Republicans did not take the opportunity to reform health-care during their time of power over the last decade or so. This enabled the issue to intensify, become the foremost plank in Democrat campaigns, and created an image of "do nothing" Republicans on the issue of health reform.
So, smart policy? Good policy? Thoughts/Comments?
Last edited: