The giddiness of November is over, and by now I'm sure both political parties are actively strategizing for the legislative battles that surely lie ahead. For the first time in a dozen years, the Democrats will control the agenda. We're bigger than they are now, so legislative victories lie just around the corner, right? Right?
To all who would declare victory before the fact, let me just say this: Remember Chancellorsville.
Few battles in American history have more to teach than one from our own Civil War - the Battle of Chancellorsville. Fought in May 1863, the battle pitted Robert E. Lee, "Stonewall" Jackson and 40,000 Confederates against a better-rested, and much better-equipped army of Union soldiers nearly twice its size.
Do you remember what they say about those who ignore history? Follow me below to see what we might learn...
What happened during the first two days of this battle should be studied and contemplated by all who hope to lead, because it demonstrates that capable leaders can defeat a larger force if they are bold, and if the opponent's leaders are overly-cautious.
On the evening of May 1, 1863, Lee and Jackson sat around a campfire and pondered the situation they were facing. On paper, nothing would seem to be going their way. Their army of roughly 40,000 soldiers were standing face to face with an army of over 70,000 Union troops. Those federal troops had spent an entire winter resting and re-equipping themselves, and were convinced that things were finally going to go their way.
But rather than giving up in the face of a difficult situation, Lee and Jackson concocted a risky plan in which they would defy well-established military doctrine and divide their much-smaller army directly in the face of their enemy.
Lee would stay in place and continue staring down the Union army - an army that for the past two years had been led by timid men who obsessed over the perceived strength of their enemy, and therefore rarely had the guts to go on the offensive. And while Lee stayed in place, Jackson would sneak around and attempt to flank the Union army's right.
Why would Lee and Jackson do such a thing? Why would they divide an army in front of a numerically superior enemy? The answer is simple:
- They understood that leadership was everything, and
- They understood the leaders they were facing were perfectly capable of letting the Union army down, despite their many advantages. They knew the Union leaders better than the Union did, and they anticipated correctly that Union forces would be reluctant to go on the offensive.
For those who don't know the history of Chancellorsville, the Confederate plan worked perfectly - at least on that day. A numerically superior Union army sat and timidly stared at Lee's smaller army all day long on May 2, while Jackson crept around to their right. Union leaders wanted to fight a defensive battle, and patiently waited for the battle to come to them, to be fought on their terms. Late in the day, Jackson's smaller army smashed into the right flank of the cocky Union forces, and sent hordes of them flying away in a blind panic. Had the battle started earlier in the day (it took Jackson longer than expected to get into position), the Confederates may have been able to rout the entire Army of the Potomac.
Are we are on the verge of witnessing a similar battle? The Dems are now in the majority, but many of us seemed filled with delusions about what that majority status might bring. Our army is now larger than theirs, so we should be able to easily achieve all of our aims, right? Right?
Let's not forget, folks, how effective - and how bold - the Republicans can be in the minority. They may be dumber than rocks when it comes to leading a majority, but they are very, very good at whining in the background. And like Lee and Jackson, they are very experienced with flanking moves. They know where our party is most vulnerable - on its right flank.
Think it will be easy to pass a minimum wage bill? Maybe. To fix Medicare? I hope so. But if you're like me, you probably wonder what has been done to shore up our flanks - the Blue Dogs and DLC members that will lay down their arms at the first sign of conflict and pride themselves on their supposed "bipartisanship." I would wager money that the Republicans will go after these folks with a vengeance. They will stare down our larger army and attack us on our right - just like Lee and Jackson - and if we're not ready, they'll roll right over us.
Remember the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s? Majority Dems were flanked. The Clinton health care initiative back in the 1990s? Flanked again. And if the Dems had held on to both houses of Congress after the 1994 elections, my guess is we would have been flanked on other fronts as well.
Majority status in Congress is great, but it sure doesn't guarantee victory. It doesn't even (necessarily) guarantee that we can control the agenda. "Fighting Joe" Hooker, the commander of the Union forces at Chancellorsville, wanted to fight the battle on his terms, but a smaller enemy didn't let him. If our leaders try to "pick their battles" in a similar way, they could also wind up getting sliced and diced. To some degree, I see that happening here when the anti-impeachment forces among us go on and on and on about how "we don't have the votes." Timidly cherry-picking your battles - hoping that the war will always be fought on your terms - can lead to disaster, as Hooker sadly learned.
Now I don't expect Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid to announce their preparations to the world, so I can't say for certain that they aren't carefully preparing the party's "right flank" appropriately. Maybe they are. Maybe the whips are getting some good marching orders and building up their resolve. Still, it seems to me that it might be wise for the netroots to get involved independently just in case. Those of you who live in districts represented by Blue Dogs or DLCers could be calling or writing your reps and encouraging them to hold firm with the party on the votes that we know are coming up early in the agenda. Let them know that the "bipartisanship" that is being seductively dangled in front of them is anything BUT true bipartisanship.
If I were Pelosi or Reid I would be fortifying like crazy in the next few weeks, and having long, long talks with those who identify themselves as occupying our flanks. I would also be contemplating some bold moves - specifically designed to knock Republicans off-balance and into a defensive position, rather than carefully cherry-picking battles and hoping we can stay on the offensive forever.
If we're not careful, if we start off either timid or complacent, we may find that we can control the agenda ONLY during that first 100 hours, if even that long. Here's hoping that history doesn't repeat itself...