The Day After
When writing the Constitution of the United States, the founding fathers were concerned about the “people” exercising their will on the Government without the necessary judgment to carry out the task. So, instead of developing a “democracy,” where every person would have an equal say in government, they built a Federal Republic. They recognized that the United States was in fact sovereign states joining a sovereign Federal government. And they developed that government to represent the views of the people, and of the states.
The power of the states was guaranteed in the United States Senate, where each one, small in population or large, would have two representatives. They served for six years, a long time without a reckoning, so they could act more independently. Originally, those representatives were chosen by the state legislatures rather than by popular vote, putting Senators a full step away from direct election. This was changed by the 17th Amendment (1913) requiring a direct vote, but Senators are still not based on equal representation. Senator Tester of Montana represents a little over a million people, Senator Feinstein of California thirty-nine million.
The voice of the people was to be heard in the House of Representatives. They were directly elected, their districts apportioned equally throughout the country. Today, each member represents about 800,000 people, whether they are from New York or Rhode Island or Alaska. The House was designed to be “hot,” a place of argument and action; the Senate, the “saucer to cool the hot tea” of the House, a place for long debate and deliberation.
Review for that old American Government Exam is over.
Yesterday the nation made a choice. We chose to put a check on the Presidency of Donald Trump, by using the “People’s House,” placing it in the hands of the opposition party, the Democrats. Today President Trump actually offered to compromise with the incoming House of Representatives (though he did threaten to withhold cooperation if the House investigates his behavior.) Even he recognizes the message.
But while he is trying to “make-up” to the Democrats, he has “doubled-down” on his attack on the Press. If Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party aren’t to be his bête noire, his conference today made it clear that the Press will continue to serve the role as “whipping boy.” Ask Jim Acosta of CNN.
Yesterday the nation also chose to back many of those Senators who were “blessed” by the President. No repudiation of Trumpism should be seen in the results of those elections, only a desire of Americans to give Democrats a chance to change the constant clamor of divisiveness and inability to achieve. The nation wants something to get done, Democrats are now being given a chance to act.
So it’s up to Democrats. There probably is no one who wants investigations of the President more than me, and there should be thoughtful and deliberate hearings into the actions of the President and his campaign. But if that’s all that Democrats can get done, then they will not have answered the mandate given them last night.
After two years of Resistance, it’s hard not to “go for it all” right away. We want to undo the “mistake” of 2016, and we want to limit further damage to our nation. But that’s not going to convince a broader element of the country to turn away from the polarization of Trumpism, and it will fall into the trap of the President’s plan. He needs the divide to succeed for his own success (God forbid) in 2020 and it’s up to the House not to get used and give it to him.
It should fall to the Mueller Investigation, with the support of the House, to ferret out what happened in the 2016 election. And if the President decides to lash out at Mueller and Rosenstein, firing them or trying to short-circuit their investigation, then it will be up to the House to protect the process.
One final history lesson: in the election of 1858, the “compromisers” were given a last chance at government. It was already too late, but Illinois choose Stephen Douglas, a moderate, over Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to limit slavery. It didn’t work, and within two years Lincoln was President, and Douglas was defeated. The Civil War soon began.
So we need to ask ourselves, are we at the point where only the extremes can prevail? And if that’s true, then is the outcome some kind of alteration of our way of government, unable to withstand the pressure from either side, as was the case in 1860? Or can we get back to a point where there can be dissension without polarization; that while the President and the House may clash about investigations and cooperation with foreign adversaries, they could still find areas to work together to improve America?
The choice of the people last night, was to take another chance on a functioning government. Democrats, and the President, the sole and acknowledged leader of ALL Republicans, now have to decide what to do.
Thanks again Marty… always an insightful and good read.
Thanks for the great article and for buoying the (small) optimism inside me. I live in a flipped house district and we are sending a 32-year old African-American female nurse to Congress to represent us. This is in the district that Dennis Hastert famously dominated for two decades. So politics definitely look a little brighter for us than it did three days ago!
What are your thoughts on whether Pelosi should stay on as house speaker? I think she’s done a decent job overall, but would like to see a shake-up to freshen up the party and because she is such a polarizing figure. But then again, who isn’t in this political climate of ours?
She is a polarizing figure – but also a huge fundraiser and in the best position to negotiate with Trump to get something done – a key to staying in power in 2020. Politically it’s rumored that she is considering a short term as speaker – then retirement.