Will Dems be able to get much done in DC?

After Bill Clinton's election in 1992 I remember that there was optimism even among business interests--usually friendly to Republicans--that his ascension to the presidency would be good news for the country. For this first time since 1980, one party would control the executive branch and both houses of Congress. Gridlock would be gone, things would now get done.

It didn't happen that way, and the Wall Street Journal's Naftali Bendavid explains that the Democrats may share the same problems this time around as well.

The juxtaposition highlights a challenge facing the newly powerful Democrats: keeping the White House and Congress on the same page. One-party rule may sound like a guarantee of harmonious action, but the president and Congress often have different interests, agendas and rhythms.

History is full of cautionary examples. President Jimmy Carter inherited a Congress with even bigger Democratic majorities than Mr. Obama's, but relations were rocky. Bill Clinton, too, came to power with a Democrat-controlled Congress, but quickly bickered with lawmakers over health reform and proceeded to lose the House in 1994.

Heading into 2009, "there is pent-up energy among House Democrats, especially liberal House Democrats," said Dick Armey, a former House Republican leader. "They haven't been the least bit timid about saying, 'We're going to get a lot of stuff done, get it done early, and get it to Obama as fast as we can.' He, on the other hand, has signaled he wants to govern from the center."

Union "card check" could be the first test for Washington's new order. The "free to peek" proposal for employees to choose union representation proposed by the Democrats will face fierce opposition from Republicans, and from business interests.

Technorati tags: labor republicans democrats politics Obama Barack Obama unions business Congress