The One-Party Rule Scare

In this desperate week of fighting to hold onto Washington power, the GOP will play its last card--to arouse voter fear of what one-party rule would do to the country, of what the "Socialism" of Barack Obama would mean if supported by filibuster-proof majorities that would give Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid a free hand.

By implicitly acknowledging the defeat of their White House ticket, Republicans could make the argument in an attempt to save such endangered Senate seats as those of Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, Saxby Chambliss in Georgia and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.

Since Americans have an innate mistrust of concentrated power, the notion could gain traction for voters with short memories. They would have to forget the past two years of "checks and balances" that prevented extending health care to impoverished children and setting reasonable timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, among other majority desires.

Some might look at the first six years of the Bush Administration with a compliant Congress that produced a disastrous war, a ruined economy and an assault on the Constitution. That was one-party rule with a vengeance, but does that make the case for an impotent divided Washington or for putting the future in the hands of a party that won't abuse its power?

No reasonable person would be willing to trust an Obama Administration and Democratic Congress with unlimited power but, in cleaning up eight years of Bush wreckage, it makes sense to let them start doing the job without their hands tied.