Is it in bad taste to talk about the death of Strom Thurmond before he has actually died? Probably, but hey, everyone in the Washington power corridors seems to be talking about it, even Strom. "I'd like to be buried in South Carolina, in Aiken," the extremely senior South Carolina senator recently told a reporter from the Charleston Post and Courier. As a decorated veteran of World War II (he parachuted into Normandy on D-Day), Thurmond is entitled to a last resting place in Arlington National Cemetery but prefers his home ground. "But I'm not thinking about dying soon," the 98-year-old senator added. "I expect to live a long time."
The actuarial projections of Senate colleagues run hard in the opposite direction. Thurmond, the longest-serving senator in US history, is extremely frail. His poor condition has provided the macabre subtext for Congressional politics in George W. Bush's opening months. "Strom looks terrible, really bad," an insider confided. "It's actually kind of pathetic and sad." The senator's shuffling gait has slowed markedly, with aides always close at hand. Doctors have urged him to use a wheelchair to ease the pain in his hips, but according to acquaintances, Strom is too proud and guts it out. Likewise for a hearing aide. The senator has been hospitalized numerous times during the past few years, most recently in February, for exhaustion or dehydration or perhaps other unspecified ailments. On his 98th birthday, last December, a reporter asked why he had blacked out recently at a suburban restaurant, after which he was rushed to the hospital. The senator said he did not recall. Told that doctors suspected dehydration, the senator laughed. "Everybody ought to drink more water," he said.
If Strom does die, his passing matters greatly to the Republic. The 50-50 Senate abruptly becomes 50-49 Democratic. Then, assuming South Carolina's Democratic Governor, Jim Hodges, appoints a Democrat as Thurmond's successor, the Senate becomes 51-49. In that event, the delicate ground rules worked out for operating the Senate with an even split would be tossed out. Democrats would become the chairs of all committees. And, most important, Democratic leaders would take control of the legislative flow.
If Dems become the majority, George Bush's frail young presidency would have to devise a less breathless strategy for legislating, because Democrats would decide which bills come to the Senate floor and when. They would certainly not have permitted Bush to secure early passage of his tax-cut bill. If they were in control, the Dems could mobilize for early action on a minimum-wage increase or the long-stalled patients' bill of rights, among other issues. Of course, they would still have to find the votes for passage and would have to dicker with the White House, but their bargaining position would be substantially improved.
The downside for Senate Dems is that they would also lose their cover–the excuse for their limp performance. As the minority half of the 50-50 Senate (thanks to Veep Dick Cheney's power as tiebreaker), Democratic senators have been relatively passive and have ceded a lot of ground to the Bush agenda, pleading their weak status. At the grassroots, people want much more aggressive opposition, and they are steamed. If minority leader Tom Daschle suddenly becomes majority leader, he will doubtless hear fiercer complaints. His operating strategy so far seems designed not to discomfort any incumbent Democrats facing tough campaigns next year by forcing the party to embrace bolder positions. If Daschle doesn't change his style, Dems may look like a mushy majority.