Just over a year ago, following President Obama’s historic election, I shared the assumption held by many Democrats that the Republican Party was in such shambles that it would be unable to contest the Democrats’ majority in Congress for several election cycles. It was not a totally unfounded viewpoint. After all, many Republican strongholds outside of the deep south were wiped out – in the House of Representatives, the Democrats picked up 21 seats from the Republicans, including 14 incumbent seats. The party was devoid of a standout leader, and it seemed to possess no clear ideological vision.

Yet here we are, just a year later, and it is a distinct possibility that Republicans will regain a majority in the House in next year’s midterm elections. At the very least, they are poised to make substantial gains in both chambers of Congress. They have been successful in recruiting talented candidates, and will compete fiercely against Democrats across the country. For example, Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) leads Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden in the race to fill the Senate seat vacated by Biden’s father, Vice President Joe Biden. Similarly, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) may very well flip President Obama’s old Senate seat from blue to red.

any political analysts have chalked the situation up to “debt politics” – federal spending under the Obama administration is on track to double the national debt from the 2006 level by next year. In an attempt to respond to this concern, the Democrats have cast their legislative agenda into a spasm of vacillation.

Word has begun to spread that Obama plans to call for a “war on the debt” in his first State of the Union address next January. But it is unclear what material impact this could have on the packed legislative agenda, which includes finishing health care and financial reform, passing a cap-and-trade bill in the Senate, and restarting the immigration debate that sparked massive controversy two years ago.

Some insiders have suggested that it could mean setting aside cap-and-trade. This move would be utter nonsense. A true debt fighter would insist on a stronger cap-and-trade bill that auctions off carbon permits, and thereby raises billions that could offset the deficit.

any progressives believe that the proper reaction to this debt insincerity is simply to ignore it. Some – such as well-known economist Paul Krugman – instead argue for a second stimulus, and as for the legislative agenda: full steam ahead.

I wish it were so simple. But I do not believe that obsession with the debt is simply ignorance or obfuscation. Many Americans are furious with rising unemployment and the quick rebound of Wall Street after last year’s cringe-inducing round of bailouts. Some have responded by lashing out at government spending in an anti-establishment tirade.

This could pose problems for the Democrats in the looming election. What if further stimulus does not translate quickly enough into jobs? Then, the president’s party will be burdened not only with unemployment but also with the image of a stubborn refusal to address the public’s deficit concerns.

Is there no way for Obama and the Democrats to preserve their agenda without imperiling their electoral prospects? I think there may be.

A good start would be to fund a jobs package with left-over Troubled Asset Relief Program funding. Redirecting bailout money to the people would make for a fantastic narrative. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already signed onto this proposal.

But the populism must not end there. The administration has opted for a quiet, behind-the-scenes approach to financial regulatory reform. Protecting the Federal Reserve’s independence from ill-advised congressional turf-grabbing is a worthwhile goal. Yet even this moderate course represents the most significant shift in financial regulation since the Great Depression. A bit of bragging – at the expense of banks that have posted sizeable profits just months after the divisive round of bailouts – would not be out of order.

Should our pragmatist chief executive take a brief trip to populist territory, another sensible proposal awaits. Last week, several members of Congress introduced one of the best-titled bills in recent memory: the “Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act of 2009.” It would levy a small tax on financial transactions, like stock trades, raising $150 billion per year. The legislation would funnel half the revenue to deficit reduction and half to employment stimulus. Discouraging excessive short-term, irrationally exuberant trading could help to prevent herd behavior in markets that can spark a crisis. And even if it does not, it would check off three boxes: jobs, debt and sticking it to Wall Street.

I supported Obama in his run for the presidency last year in large part because of his pragmatic approach to policymaking. He has not disappointed. But when aversion to populism, even in tone, threatens to condemn his party and agenda to failure, it is time for a change. With an electorate yearning for a just conclusion to last fall’s financial debacle, populism and pragmatism are, in fact, one and the same.

Sam Harbourt is a senior in the School of Foreign Service. He can be reached at harbourtthehoya.com. The Pragmatic Progressive appears every other Monday at www.thehoya.com.

*To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact [opinionthehoya.com](opinionthehoya.com). Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.*

“