Democrats should pick their battles
Is an election a game, or is it war? Is it a contest in which the opposing sides respect each other and know they must get along after it’s over, or is it a life-or-death struggle in which the loser is at the mercy of the victor?
Democrats have been concerned about the process, while Republicans have focused on results. Michelle Obama’s response to the Donald Trump campaign’s politically incorrect rhetoric was, “When they go low, we go high.” But the Democrats brought a knife to a gunfight in the 2016 presidential campaign – Trump was sworn in as president Friday.
Trump’s victory presents Democrats with a dilemma. The country’s system of government is based on checks and balances; getting anything done within that system usually requires a compromise. But during the Obama presidency, the Republicans adopted a strategy of scorched-earth opposition that eschewed compromise. Obama’s first major legislative proposal as president, the economic stimulus package, got not Republican votes, even though it was modified to appeal to them (its size was reduced and and more tax cuts were added), and the economy faced an existential crisis. Neither did the Affordable Care Act, which was based on a plan put forward by the conservative Heritage Foundation. A version of it was implemented by Republican Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.
Senate Republicans changed the filibuster from a rarely-used tactic reserved for deeply-felt ideological differences to a normal event, even filibustering non-controversial, lower court nominees. They also threatened to shut down the government, and refused to raise the debt ceiling. While some of these tactics had been used previously – albeit rarely or in symbolic ways – the Republican refusal to engage in governing the country was unprecedented. They rarely offered alternatives to the legislation they shot down. They voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 60 times in six years, yet even after gaining full control of Congress, they have yet to propose a replacement.
The result was gridlock; three of the four Congresses during the Obama presidency were the least productive Congresses in modern history. The Republicans became “the party of no,” and the approval rating for the 112th Congress dropped to 9 percent, the lowest ever. But, while voters hate Congress, they keep re-electing their own representatives (97 percent of House incumbents were re-elected in 2016). Part of this is due to gerrymandering, where parties draw district boundaries to maximize their power, creating “safe” districts, and this discourages compromise. Representatives who compromise risk getting “primaried,” or challenged by someone more partisan in primary contests. Eric Cantor, the Republican majority leader in the House from 2011 to 2014, lost to an unknown Tea Party challenger in his 2014 primary.
Gridlock also benefits the Republican Party more than Democrats. Philosophically, Republicans believe that government is inevitably incompetent, so gridlock confirms their rationale for limiting government.
The problem for Democrats is that this policy worked. Unprecedented obstruction helped create Trump’s victory. One example was the Senate’s refusal to even consider Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. There was nothing wrong with the nominee – Senate Republicans had universally praised him when they previously confirmed him for a lower court – except that he would give the court a liberal majority. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gambled that if the Republicans refused to fill the seat, it would not cost them much politically and they might have a chance to fill the seat were a Republican to win the presidential election. The preservation of a conservative Supreme Court was one reason that many Republican voters, primarily evangelicals and traditional economic conservatives who weren’t particularly enamored with Trump, were wiling to vote for him. And given Trump’s electoral victory was secured by a little over 100,000 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, this issue alone probably got Trump enough supporters to win.
So, the challenge for Democrats is whether they should follow the successful Republican strategy of trying to prevent the party controlling the government from achieving anything. Should they oppose every Trump nominee and refuse to consider a new Supreme Court justice? Should they threaten to use the filibuster to stop any Republican legislation from passing the Senate, the only branch of government where Democrats have that ability? Or should they give Trump and the Republicans an opportunity to enact their agenda and see if it works?
Many on the left do not want to “normalize” Trump, and plan to oppose him at every turn. This certainly would seem appropriate, given the Republicans’ treatment of Obama. But if successful, it is not a stretch to imagine Trump using this issue as a reason to ignore traditional checks and balances, and move in a more authoritarian direction to “get things done.” And while recent history would suggest that obstruction succeeds politically, the country would be better off with a functioning government.
A longer view of history suggests that politicians have a tendency to overreach, which eventually inspires movement in the opposite direction. Instead of blanket opposition, Democrats should pick their battles, and make sure Republicans are held accountable for what they do accomplish.
Kent James is a resident of East Washington.