2014 Midterm Election Post-Mortem: What's Next?

Now that the votes have been counted, the tears have been shed, the champagne has been consumed, and the unemployment insurance claims filed it is time to consider what the results mean for government and governing in America over the next two years.  I'll start with a look at the House of Representatives, the Senate, and then the executive branch.

The House of Representatives

As of November 9th the GOP controls 244 seats in the House to 184 for the Democrats with seven races still undecided.  A quick look at the NY Times big board indicates that the GOP is likely to capture five of those undecided seats.  That will put them right around 250 seats, their largest caucus since Herbert Hoover was president.  Archie Bunker would be proud.  Does the increased majority make it more likely the House GOP starts governing again?  I think it does and here's why:

John Boehner and Kevin McCarthy, the Speaker and Majority Leader in the House, are for the most part moderate establishment politicians.  They're not obstructionists like some of their fellow bomb-throwing extremists who demanded a shut down of the federal government in 2013 and threatened to allow the nation to default on its sovereign debt.  Boehner and McCarthy are conservatives without a doubt but they are conservatives who want to see Washington work efficiently.  Sure, they live in a fictional bubble where smaller government is possible and Big Bird loses his head but, hey, you have to dream big in order to keep waking up every day, right?

Seriously, the larger majority in the House for Boehner allows him to do something he has not been able to do since being elected Speaker in 2010...tell the Tea Party to take a hike and get with the program or become irrelevant.  The question is whether he will do it or not.  My bet is he will and we will see a much more productive House in 2015 and 2016.  We might even see some major legislation emerge such as immigration reform and tax reform.  To be sure, it will reflect Republican priorities so Boehner and McCarthy will have to do some negotiating with the president if they want it to become law.  I think they'll find a way to get it done.  The alternative is to go into the 2016 presidential election as the party that controlled Congress for two years and did nothing.  Given the different electorate we are likely to see in 2016 I do not think that is a very good strategy.  I suspect Boehner and McCarthy would agree with that assessment.  Had the Republican House such a majority in 2014 I suspect the bipartisan immigration reform bill passed by the Senate would have been brought to the floor of the House and passed with bipartisan support and then signed into law by President Obama.

The Senate

It appears right now the GOP will net nine seats in the Senate, which will put them at 54.  That's not enough to end a filibuster if a the Democratic minority decides to play the obstructionism card the way the GOP did for the past four years.   There are a core group of institutionalists within the minority that will prevent obstruction from becoming the norm for the next two years.  Further, the Democrats have nothing to lose and everything to gain by working with newly minted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to find areas of common ground to move policy forward.  They likely will not get everything they want but history shows that Democrats have been much more willing to compromise in order to govern than the GOP has in recent years.  As of now, I see no evidence to indicate that will change in the 114th Congress.  The wild card is Harry Reid, the presumptive minority leader.  Reid has the potential to make life hell for the GOP if he wants to.  I wouldn't blame him if he did after what he has been through for the last four years but eventually the time comes to stop playing tit for tat and acting like a grown up.  Perhaps both McConnell and Reid will realize that the time has arrived.  Otherwise they both ought to retire to some Kentucky stud farm.

Taking control of the Senate also means that Republicans can no longer point fingers at the Democrats for failing to pass a budget, ignoring the minority, and all the other ills that Harry Reid has been accused of passing on to the country.  The GOP will have to stand or fall in 2016 based upon its own performance.  America has given the party a chance to prove it can govern.  Govern it must or 2016 will see a return of a Democratic Senate, though the odds are somewhat longer of that happening if the GOP does indeed have 54 seats.  Donkeys would need to net four seats and the presidency in 2016 or five seats if the GOP wins the presidency.

The President

In some ways, losing control of Congress has got to be a relief for the president.  He is now free to work with Republicans without regard to what Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi wants.  The major players for the president now become John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.  Sure, that doesn't mean they'll sit around holding hands, sipping Kentucky Bourbon, and singing Kumbaya.  But it does mean the president has an incentive to accomplish some things over his final two years in office.  If the president is wise he will employ the triangulation strategy that worked so well for Bill Clinton.  In essence, President Obama will attempt to co-opt some of the Republicans priorities in the next Congress, which allows him to get the credit when they enact what is essentially their agenda.  Such a strategy only goes so far, however.  It is unlikely the president will give on his core principles, which is sure to setup a showdown with the new Republican Congress.

Moving Forward

The takeover of the Senate by Republicans may well be a blessing in disguise for the president and the Democratic Party.  As I said, if the GOP fails to govern for the next two years it benefits the Democrats in 2016.  Using a spatial analysis approach, what matters most over the next two years are the pivot points for the major players.  Pivot points reflect the optimal position of the 218th member of the House, the 51st (or 60th) vote in the Senate, and the preferred position of the president.  The larger majority in the House may mean the 218th vote position has moved slightly right or slightly left from where it was in 2013-14.  If it has moved to the right (due to greater Tea Party strength) then the next two years will be an exercise in brutal futility as there will be little ground for compromise.  If the pivot point for the 218th member of the House has moved slightly left (due to greater moderate strength among new members) then there may be more room for deals to be struck with the Senate and president.

The pivot points in the Senate have shifted significantly to the right with the GOP taking control.  The 51st vote now rests with the 4th least conservative Republican as opposed to the 4th least liberal Democrat.  That means John McCain or Lisa Murkowski is likely to hold the 51st vote on items that can be passed on a simple majority vote.  If 60 votes are required due to a Democratic filibuster (or threat thereof) the 60th vote will likely come from Jeanne Shaheen or Michael Bennet (40th most liberal).

The president's pivot point is likely to also shift rightward.  Despite the rhetoric of many conservative Republicans many of President Obama's actual policies have been quite conservative from the tax cuts implemented in 2009-2011 to the transfer of wealth from individual citizens to big insurance companies under the ACA, which was modeled on a plan first proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation.  Since Obama has shown little hesitancy to move to the right when a deal could be struck with the House leadership I expect him to continue to do the same in 2015-16.  Only now the deals will be between Obama, Boehner, and McConnell.  If Boehner and McConnell can reach agreement then the president is likely to come along unless it involves a gutting of Obamacare or any of his other signature accomplishments.  The most likely major agreements are on immigration reform and tax reform in the next two years.  There will also likely be some tweaks to Obamacare but unless the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional it is here to stay.

Towards A New (and better) Constitution

So it begins...every Friday between today and November 11th the undergraduate students in my Honors College class will meet as delegates to a new constitutional convention.  Their task, simply put, is similar to that which was given to the delegates at the convention in 1787...to revise and strengthen the existing document that created the United States of America.  Some 224 years have passed since the delegates began meeting in Philadelphia in the late spring of 1787.  By the time they finished in September of that year the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were no more.  In their place was a brand new document replete with new (and stronger) governmental institutions than had previously existed.  The ratification debate over the next year would be fierce but in the end the constitution would be ratified by the requisite nine states on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire assented.  Virginia and New York would follow later that summer and the Congress created by the Articles of Confederation agreed to cease existence on March 4, 1789. 

Now, 224 years later, how has that constitution held up?  Most would argue that it has held up quite well due to adaptation, amendment, and a common political culture committed to the constitution as the supreme law of the land.  That is not to discount the terrible struggles of the 19th century from the nullification crisis in the 1830's to the most destructive war the United States has ever fought, our own Civil War.  Yet, through it all, Americans have hung together, committed to making the system work for all Americans, though it is doubtless that improvements can and should be made.  For if we cannot learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.  Our various political factions alternately accuse each other of violating the constitution, be it by employing 'secret rendition', unauthorized wiretaps, or mandating every American to purchase health insurance or pay a fine/tax.  Obstructionist tactics have risen to new heights as partisans threaten filibusters to prevent legislation from even being considered on the floor of the Senate.  The number of threatened filibusters between 2007 and 2011 is greater than ALL the filibusters over the previous 200 years.  As little as 20 years ago, senators would have to carry out, not just threaten, a filibuster to prevent unwanted legislation.  House Republicans have adopted a new tactic this year to prevent the president from making recess appointments by refusing to allow Congress to go into recess during the annual August recess even though the House has NO role in the nomination and confirmation process.  Senate Democrats did something similar during the final months of George W. Bush's 2nd term, though they were in control of the Senate at that time.  It is unprecedented for the House to obstruct presidential action (and not at all clear if constitutional) for which it has no say in the process. 

Beyond obstructionism, Americans have lost confidence in their political institutions.  Congress' approval rate stands around 13%, the president at 39%, and the Court at near 50%.  Corporations have been declared to be 'persons' with free speech rights, allowed to create 'super-pacs' and make unlimited contributions to them for the purpose of promoting the defeat or election of candidates to the federal Congress.  They spent over $300 million in 2010 doing just that, 2/3 on behalf of Republicans.  Democrats will respond likewise in 2012.  Some $20 million was spent in a special election race in NY early in 2011 and $30 million on recall efforts of state senators in WI in July and August.  Deficit spending has become a huge concern for Americans, as evidenced by the rise of the Tea-Party movement in 2009, though it is unclear how much of that is really anti-Obama politics at this point.  Representatives spend nearly all their time cultivating contacts and raising funds for reelection.  The reelection campaign for the presidency often begins 21 months before the election and nearly a billion dollars will be spent by all the parties involved.  Compare that with the British Parliamentary elections, which run about six weeks and feature free air time for each party to make it's case to the people, followed by a term of up to five years for the victorious party to go about the task of governing rather than electioneering.  Of course, there are drawbacks to parliamentary systems as well, such as little to no voice for the opposition. 

All in all, the time has come for reform and I am giving my students a chance to accomplish it.  It shall be interesting to see what they create, what rights are preserved, what institutional structures remain intact, and so on.  I will write about the results here each Friday as time allows.  Let the convention begin! 

The Game of Politics: War by other means

Much has been written over the past several months about the debt ceiling, congressional debates, government shutdowns, and so on.  That's all well and good but I think most of it misses the bigger picture.  It seems to me that what we are really witnessing is a revolution in the way the game of politics is played.  Carl von Clausewitz said that 'war is the continuation of (politics) by other means.'  True enough.  In the hostile realm of American politics today perhaps we should stand that maxim on its head and say that 'politics is simply war by other means.'  The only thing that prevents our politics from becoming a 'hot' war is that neither side has control of a military!

Back to the point...our great nation entered a period of highly contentious politics sometime after the election of Ronald Reagan and before the election of Bill Clinton.  Yet, even then our politics were civil (mostly) and party leaders knew how to work with one another to bargain and get the best deals they could.  Split party control of the levers of government has been more or less the norm since the end of World War II, but not since the 1890's and early 1900's have we witnessed as much partisan animosity as we see today.  Have the preferred positions of America's two great parties diverged so much that there is no longer a common ground?  By the time America elected a Republican Congress during the first of President Clinton's two midterms it sure began to look that way.  The next six years were filled with partisan rancor, two government shutdowns, the impeachment of the president for purely political reasons, and a presidential election in 2000 that resulted in the candidate who LOST the popular vote winning a narrow victory in the Electoral College after more than five weeks of recounts and court battles!  Less than nine months into his presidency America was attacked and the partisan divide all but disappeared for a few years.

Fast forward ten years.  It is now the middle of the third year of Barack Obama's first (only?) term as president.  Gone is the unity we saw after 9/11, gone is any semblance of goodwill on the part of our legislators in Washington.  It has been replaced by crazy talk, name calling on both sides of the aisle, conspiracy theories about whether the president was born in the United States, is a closet Muslim, has an anti-colonial Kenyan mentality, and whatever else can be flung at him.  Members of Congress don't trust each other, rarely talk to members of the other party, and compromise has become a dirty word.

Case in point...the now resolved debate over raising the debt ceiling, a move that had to happen to avoid the first ever default on obligations by the United States government.  The stock market has been sliding, down some 700 points (nearly 6%) in July alone, costing investors some $680 billion.  Standard & Poors has threatened to downgrade the government's AAA credit rating, which would negate any deficit reduction passed by Congress due to higher borrowing rates.  It may still downgrade us even though a deal was reached.  The sad thing is that THE CRISIS WAS WHOLLY UNNECESSARY and resulted from partisan grandstanding by BOTH sides.  Republicans insisted on achieving deficit reduction solely through spending cuts...and only on programs Democrats support.  Democrats insisted on putting new revenues on the table, primarily in the form of tax rate increases on the top 2% of earners...the very people who have enjoyed the most prosperity over the past decade.  In the end, neither side got what they wanted and both are unhappy today.  Both sides played the obstructionist card extremely well, though I think the GOP played it somewhat more effectively by threatening to allow a default if Democrats did not accede to their wishes.  And it worked.  Magnificently.

So what's the problem?  The problem is that what goes around comes around.  Democrats are slow learners but once they catch on, look out.  The partisan feud isn't over by a long shot and neither is the employment of obstructionist tactics.  Republicans are in the minority now in the Senate and Democrats hold the presidency, at least until January 20, 2013.  The GOP has a better than even shot at winning control of the Senate in the 2012 election and I'd estimate a 45-50% chance of capturing the White House.  However, their majority in the House of Representatives is likely to shrink back to somewhere around 230-235 seats, though Democrats do have about a 30% chance of regaining the majority.  In the Senate, the GOP will likely top out at around 53-54 seats...not enough to prevent Democratic obstructionism.  If Republicans do manage to capture the White House next year they may be doomed to four years of frustration as Democrats throw up every roadblock they possibly can.

Interesting note:  If, by some miracle, Democrats took the House while Republicans captured the Senate and presidency, it would be the first time since 1952 that each of those three government entities would change hands in the same election.

Perhaps we should just give them weapons and let them wage war until one side emerges victorious after all?