Pick a cliché: “Hell has frozen over.” “The American people clearly wanted a change.” “The Democrats managed not to screw up a sure thing.”
Whatever your description of the mid-term results, it was unthinkable even a few months ago that Democrats would wrest control of both the House and the Senate from Republicans. It may have been a foregone conclusion that Democrats would re-take the lower chamber (and even that was somewhat debatable), but assuming the gavel in the Senate seemed like the longest of long shots. Yet, here we are.
In the words of King George III, via Lin-manuel Miranda, “What comes next?”
Let’s begin with the House, which is a fundamentally different beast than the Senate. Specifically, it is a “majoritarian” body, which means that the party in power is truly in power. The Speaker sets the legislative agenda, assigns committee members/chairs, and controls the schedule. In short, the House is as centralized and top-down as any communist party’s politburo.
“Mr. Jeffries’ number one task … will be to maintain party discipline through the raucous Democratic infighting that is sure to come.”
Democrats’ victory there promises to set off fireworks — both across and within party lines. Those fireworks will rival the biggest July 4th celebrations. Presumably, U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York will soon take the Speaker’s seat. Contrary to popular belief, Mr. Jeffries’ number one task will not be to go after President Trump. Rather, it will be to maintain party discipline through the raucous Democratic infighting that is sure to come — especially as regards President Trump and his agenda. That will be a lot easier said than done.
Jeffries is the poster child for centrist, “corporate” Democrats. But leftwing Democrats smell blood in the water. They believe, not without reason, that a growing percentage of Americans are ready for radical change. They are going to give centrist Democrats fits up to, and well beyond, the 2028 election. Speaking of which, potential leftwing/populist presidential candidates include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who will have spent more than a decade in the House by then.
Still, Democratic control means that the Republican Party in the House will be, collectively, persona non grata. During Donald Trump’s second term, the Republican-led House has been even more of a rubber stamp than has the Republican-led Senate. At least the upper chamber makes an effort to appear independent at times — before predictably genuflecting before the president. The House? Not so much. That will change with Democrats in control.
“… a historic third Trump impeachment will likely be on the table.”
Of course, a historic third Trump impeachment will likely be on the table. If I had to guess, it would be based on Trump’s and his family’s unprecedented personal enrichment. The grift during his first term has turned into full-scale graft in his second term. Indeed, by Mr. Trump’s own admission, he and his family have made billions of dollars in the last couple of years. The words “unprecedented corruption” are woefully inadequate to describe the scope and scale of his venality.
And, if the impeachment process starts, it could derail just about everything else that the Congress should be working on. Of course, there is very little chance that impeachment would result in Mr. Trump’s conviction and removal from office — despite a Senate that Democrats will control. And even if by some miracle he were to be convicted, the Republican-led Supreme Court has made it all but impossible to hold him accountable in any criminal sense. Stay tuned…
What will change in the Senate? Well, in sharp contrast to the House, the upper chamber is an “individualist” body. It has a more communitarian approach to its operations. Thus, a single senator can gum up the works. In recent years, that body has usually been close to 50-50 Democrat vs. Republican split. This means that it is crucial to have one’s party control the White House so that the vice president can break a tie vote. It is also why both parties are extremely reluctant to jettison the filibuster. Democrats’ relatively slim majority in the Senate makes their grip on power there somewhat complicated.
The bottom line is that Democrats will be able to temper nearly anything that Trump and the Republicans want to do legislatively in the next couple of years. The president will have to work exceedingly hard to get the “Blue Team,” especially those in the House (who tend to be more progressive than Senate Democrats), to go along with the remaining parts of his legislative agenda.
Among the major changes that I expect to see are much more scrutiny of the administration’s spending, military and otherwise. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth will likely be a frequent visitor to Capitol Hill to try to explain (or explain away) the morass that is the Iran War. Further, we should expect that the U.S. will again start funding Ukraine at relatively high levels.
“… Democratic control of both chambers will almost assuredly result in a bevy of investigations.”
Also, Democratic control of both chambers will almost assuredly result in a bevy of investigations. Prominent among them will be a return to a focus on Jeffrey Epstein. That saga will go from being the elephant in the room to being the decaying fish on the plate. And I strongly suspect that several members of the Administration will be called to testify about allegations of government corruption, including by the President.
Of course, things will not be all smiles and giggles within the Democratic Party. Its internal tensions will likely be front and center early on. Very ugly battles played out in Democratic primary elections across the country. This is arguably most evident in the enduring bitterness between Michigan Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed and his primary rival, Congresswoman Haley Stevens (speaking ofpersona non grata). The new House and Senate leaders will be leading a somewhat discordant Democratic choir. They’ll be singing, “All we are saying is give peace (among ourselves) a chance!”
As far back as I can remember, Americans have discussed the importance of “divided government.” Depending on the context, that phrase refers to one political party occupying the White House while the other party controls at least one chamber of Congress. While preferences among rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats shift over time, members of both parties generally prefer a divided government, especially when their party does not control the White House. By contrast, independent voters generally prefer divided government irrespective of whether a Democrat or Republican is president.
The reasoning is intuitive; in a democracy, most people are at least somewhat uncomfortable with the “opposition party” controlling both the executive and legislative branches. (Not to mention the fact that the Supreme Court is increasingly seen as partisan — especially due to President Trump’s appointees.) As a result, the entrenchment of party fealty has increasingly made it more important for the party that does not occupy the White House to control either (or both) the House and the Senate.
However, in recent years polling has suggested that divided government is less popular than it has been in the past. This is related to the increasing animosity between the two major political parties, which has steadily worsened in the Trump era. (Though some research suggests that Americans are not quite as bitterly divided as the media, traditional and social, makes it appear.)
Democrats across America are rejoicing that they now have a check on Mr. Trump’s power. But they must also be vigilant to check themselves before they wreck themselves. “If you don’t know, now you know…”
Contact community leader Larry Smith at larry@leaf-llc.com.
, but assuming the gavel in the Senate seemed like the longest of long shots. Yet, here we are.){kind=link}