Democrats' problem is Congress itself
Democrats want Congress to operate like a European parliament. It can't happen.
President Biden's agenda is in trouble.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told her caucus Monday she would decouple the $1 trillion infrastructure bill already passed by the Senate from more controversial and costly social spending. The same day, Republican senators blocked a bill already passed by the House that would have raised the debt ceiling and provided funding to prevent a government shutdown before December. Democrats could get around that decision by modifying the pending budget resolution, but that would complicate ongoing efforts to reach a bipartisan deal over its other contents. The upshot: The country faces a government shutdown on Friday and unprecedented default on federal debts in October, and Biden seems powerless to help.
Democrats agree this is no way to govern, but the party is fighting over where responsibility lies. Moderates are frustrated with progressives. Progressives are mad at moderates. Backbenchers are angry with the leadership. The leaders blame Republicans. Republicans, meanwhile, can barely conceal their delight. Some analysts are already talking about a failed presidency.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
There's plenty of blame to go around, but the real problem lies in the institution of Congress itself. Frustrated by their slim majorities — but with ambitions undiminished — Democrats want Congress to operate like a European parliament in which the majority rules until voters change their minds. Internal rules, constitutional constraints, and geographic polarization make that impossible.
Some of the turmoil we see is theater that satisfies media demands for constant drama. Rather than providing an undistorted glimpse of congressional sausage-making, short-term coverage relies heavily on conventional wisdom, performative quotes, and carefully coordinated leaks. When we find out what really happened in legislative negotiation, it's usually much later and much different from what the public believed at the time. Nearly half a century after the fact, for example, Robert Caro was still able to rewrite the story of President Lyndon Johnson's role in passing civil rights laws.
But the procedural challenges are real, the filibuster included. By raising the threshold for most measures to 60 votes in the Senate, the threat of filibuster promotes arcane procedural maneuvers to ensure bills can pass with simple majorities. Because it can be used only once per fiscal year, this "reconciliation" process encourages the majority party to load up its entire policy wishlist into a single bill. That's one reason Democrats have found it so difficult to settle on the details of their amorphous $3.5 trillion spending package.
Reconciliation also elevates the hitherto obscure Senate parliamentarian into a major player. Last week, for example, Parliamentarian Elizabeth Macdonough ruled Democrats couldn't include immigration reform in their fiscal proposal. Although Democrats complained she was usurping the prerogatives of elected representatives, that may have been a blessing in disguise. With the Biden administration floundering at the border, a vote on de facto amnesty could have further splintered the party and imperiled the bill.
These challenges to legislation are exacerbated by historically slim majorities. Having dreamt of an FDR- or LBJ-style majority, Democrats don't seem to accept to the reality of an evenly divided Senate and tiny House majority. When every vote is crucial, marginal voters have enormous leverage over the rest of the party. That's why activists frustrated by his opposition to massive social spending are staking out Sen. Joe Manchin's (D-W.Va.) houseboat.
But as much as Democrats might wish otherwise, this tenuous grasp on power is more the rule in Washington than the exception. Filibuster-proof Senate majorities are historically rare, and the rural bias created by equal representation for each state currently favors Republicans (in the past, it benefitted Democrats).
That reality leads some progressives to attack the Senate's very existence, while others prefer to balance their disadvantage with new, presumably Democrat-leaning states in the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico.
Such efforts are wishful thinking. The Constitution explicitly prohibits depriving any state of equal representation without its consent, making abolition of the Senate a fantasy. Adding new states doesn't face that obstacle, but it would require the kind of overwhelming majority Democrats have struggled to win.
Winning a larger majority, in turn, requires the kind of moderate agenda that appeals to swing voters. But the concentration of Democratic support in urban areas of the most populous states makes that difficult. Ensconced in safe seats in blue states, the party's left wing can demand sweeping changes that hold little appeal to centrists in purple states who elect lawmakers like Manchin. Senators from moderate states also have every reason to support the filibuster because it forces party leadership to court their vote for every major bill.
None of this is news to people who work on Capitol Hill, where cold electoral calculation is more important than colorful personalities or ideological consistency. For that reason, it's too soon to write off the Biden agenda as dead on arrival despite its present obstacles, but the significance of success shouldn't be overstated. Democrats still wouldn't have FDR- or LBJ-style power — for one thing, FDR and LBJ never struggled to keep government lights on.
Moreover, even a successful piece of social legislation is compatible with huge losses in the midterm elections. The Biden administration evidently hoped economic recovery, public health improvements, and a clean exit from Afghanistan would buck the historical pattern of the incumbent party losing congressional seats. None of that happened, leaving Democrats with dim prospects for 2022 however the legislative session turns out. And even if Democrats hang onto their majorities, Congress still won't be a European parliament. All the same constraints will remain.
If Democrats have any consolation, it's that Republicans are just as constrained, just as impotent, even in pursuit of their own greatest priorities. That's why we're observing the 10th anniversary of ObamaCare this year.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Samuel Goldman is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. He is also an associate professor of political science at George Washington University, where he is executive director of the John L. Loeb, Jr. Institute for Religious Freedom and director of the Politics & Values Program. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard and was a postdoctoral fellow in Religion, Ethics, & Politics at Princeton University. His books include God's Country: Christian Zionism in America (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018) and After Nationalism (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021). In addition to academic research, Goldman's writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications.
-
What power does Elon Musk hold as a campaigner?
Talking Points The world's richest man is going all in to get Donald Trump elected in November — whether it will make a difference is entirely unclear
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
'Some of the delay is needless'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Why does Donald Trump want to free the founder of an online black market?
Today's Big Question Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison for creating the Silk Road market
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
'Such wrongdoing encourages foreign corrupt practices'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
1 of 6 'Trump Train' drivers liable in Biden bus blockade
Speed Read Only one of the accused was found liable in the case concerning the deliberate slowing of a 2020 Biden campaign bus
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Johnson pulls spending bill amid GOP revolt
Speed Read House Speaker Mike Johnson called off a planned vote on a stopgap spending package as odds of government shutdown increase
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Why is a government shutdown possible before the election?
Today's Big Question A fight over immigration, spending and the future of House Speaker Mike Johnson
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
What did the Democratic National Convention signal about the future of the party?
Today's Big Question The three-day assembly was more than just a coronation for presidential nominee Kamala Harris — it was a statement about the where the Democratic party sees itself going next
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
'Declines haven't happened in most places'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
George Santos pleads guilty to federal crimes
Speed Read The former Republican congressman from New York blames ambition for leading him astray
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published