Post-Election Thoughts on God's Sovereignty

Well, the Democrats did what all their cronies in the mainstream media have said they would do for months now in taking over Congress. As a conservative, I should rightfully be disappointed in the outcome (or with the ability of the American people to fall for rhetoric), but I'm a little more optimistic about this loss for a variety of reasons.

1.) Hats off to the Dem's strategy - they successfully made Iraq and the President an issue in some otherwise very locally focused contests. That, in itself, didn't do it, though. For the other half of the picture, they had to paint themselves as equally conservative on social issues in order for the voters to buy their take on foreign policy. They did this admirably too (particularly in Indiana & Pennsylvania), running pro-gun, pro-life (but anti-war) candidates in traditional Republican strongholds. That's all well and good - they've got their majority and their committee chairs (honestly the only scary part of the deal). Because, however, they used a bunch of more conservative candidates, they'll have to put the social issues to rest because they really don't have a pro-abortion, etc. majority. They can wield some actual power in terms of foreign policy and taxation (okay, so that's scary too), but not on the stateside liberal agenda. Plus, we still have the veto on our side.

2.) This is a good wakeup call for the Republicans. It's told them that they can't count on conservatives to vote for them if they don't stick to conservative policies when they get to D.C. I'm glad this happened now, because it was bound to happen sometime. Now there's enough time to reorganize and present a more chaste, honest, and winsome party to run a good race for the presidency in '08. Additionally, the Dems have 2 years to make some real progress and prove that they actually can govern, not just complain. Otherwise, they'll get the boot right back.

3.) This isn't that disappointing because it isn't that abnormal. The congress historically changes hands in some form every 12-14 years. The founding fathers designed the House of Representatives to work as a barometer of the will of the people (hence why it turns over every two years) and the Senate as a more nationally focused, discerning body with less immediate turnaround (hence why senators serve six years and no state elects both of its representatives in any given election). The people, at this juncture, want a better strategy on protecting us from terrorism (i.e. - not involving ourselves in nation-building and instead forging cohesive alliances with other Western powers to be on the defensive), and that's what the House now reflects.

4.) Okay, so there is an obvious downside, too. I don't think the republicans anticipated losing the Senate as well. This kind of dual oversight is a bit much on the checks and balances - the Bush administration will be forced to walk on eggshells with everything they do for the next two years or risk investigation and/or impeachment. Additionally, the president's social agenda is out the window now - no pro-life legislation or judicial nominees will clear the capitol for a while. Look for the rest of Bush's presidency to be focused on getting out of Iraq, repairing relations with other world leaders, and attempting to stabilize Iran and North Korea enough to build credentials for the next Republican presidential nominee.

5.) Finally, I think Nov.7 should have served conservatives with a reminder that God is in control, no matter what we think (or try to solve on our own) down here. We have to remember not to put undue faith in finite men to plan our future. No political system is going to usher us into a "Christian" world - that's just flat out non-Biblical. Government is ordained by God to keep the peace so that we don't all kill each other, and a little turnaround every so often helps keep that system fresh and working. That doesn't mean I'm not already trying to figure out what it will take to orchestrate a conservative resurgence next time, though . . .