Democrats and the mainstream left at large are seething at the prospect of Trump declaring a state of emergency in order to grab funds to make up the difference that the bipartisan budget agreement failed to meet for his wall.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has vowed to pursue ‘all options’ to defeat it, most likely a formal resolution of disapproval which is all but sure to die in the GOP majority Senate. However most of the resistance is from judicial means, with the ACLU and even states attorneys general vowing or have already launched suits to stop it. This might delay Trump from getting what he wants for a fair amount of time, but the Supreme Court’s conservative majority will most likely in the end vindicate him.
Still, that hasn’t stopped Democrats from using this as another rallying cry for their base. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and other young left-wing starlets have eviscerated the proposal and labeled it a manufactured crisis (#FakeCrisis is now a popular hashtag on twitter.) Nancy Pelosi has even started to fundraise off of it.
Are they correct? More or less yes. The right has been pushing for decades a narrative of xenophobia about the state of our southern border in a way not only to cling to power but to trick poor whites into not placing their ire where it truly belongs: the billionaires. And we can continue to talk about this all we like as Democrats. We can continue to talk about how asylum seekers are coming from regions of violence and barbarism and are looking to America as a way out.
But should we die on a hill in a battle we will almost surely lose in the long run for a wall? Our immigration system has been broken for decades and has been fueled by racism, greed and cruelty. The Wall in it of itself shouldn’t be a deal breaker. If this system isn’t reformed, it will be in the same deplorable state with or without a wall across the Southern Border.
But, for now, especially if you disagree with me about the border, let’s put a pin at what I said and forget about the wall for a moment. Because the state of emergency, and more importantly the precedent that it will create, can be used to support our agenda in the future. Especially when a Democrat wins the presidency (My hopes are on him.)
The President and Policy
The American Presidency in our current day is an enigma. Many argue that ascending to the office will grant the status of the most powerful man on earth. And yes, being the commander in chief to the largest armed forces known to mankind as well as getting to appoint many bureaucrats and secretaries that manage the largest economy has its perks. Yet in a legislative sense he can be more or less kneecapped on political goals unless their is broad and bipartisan congressional support, which in times of increasing partisanship seem impossible, or he wins an outright super majority in the senate to break a filibuster.
Remember, President Obama’s signature legislative achievement in Obamacare was only possible due to him achieving the latter requirement as the final vote came out to be 60-39-1. After the Republican landslide of 2010 and the fall of the house, that was it for major legislation from the president. Now, this is not to say that the president was a lame duck for six years. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and various other executive branches under his direction did their part to lighten the stranglehold over the American worker, and we should be proud of that they did so. Yet without major legislation it is foolish to think that any president can in a substantial way change things. And with a titanic rift of economic inequality and a climate crisis on our hands, we can ill afford to simply just smooth out the edges.
A Look Towards History
While many centrist liberals hearken back with nostalgia to an era of bipartisanship started under the Eisenhower administration to the Nixon administration where our elected officials regardless of party continued to strengthen social security and build crucial infrastructure, many forget that it was only possible due to the standards Roosevelts’ New Deal started. While the parties were less ideologically rooted as they are now (A fair amount of progressive Republicans hailed from the Midwest during this era as well as a plethora of conservative southern Democrats) it would be near impossible for The New Deal to establish governments newfound role in economic affairs if it wasn’t for the crushing majority Roosevelt maintained during the first half of his presidency.
After the 1932 elections Democrats held a stunning 313 seats in the House of Representatives to 117 for Republicans (318 if you count the small Farmer Labor Party which allied with them to the total) as well as 59-36 margin in the Senate (again, it would be 60-36 if one were to count Farmer-Labor.) These majorities only maintained and grew until halfway into Roosevelt’s second term, which is also when the New Deals legislative achievements started to taper off.
It is reasonable to point out that numbers do not translate into sweeping policy. Right now my home state of New Jersey has a Democratic governor with a super majority in both houses and yet are frequently at odds which is slowing down legislation considerable. Also many of the Democrats during that time were conservative southern Democrats who especially in the second half of Roosevelt’s presidency created a ‘Conservative Coalition’ with some like-minded Republicans to defeat the presidents more ambitious plans. There will always be caveats and exceptions.
Takeaway
But broadly, Roosevelt launched these initiatives under the New Deal without needing to create bipartisan support because he of the number he commanded in the legislature. Under current circumstances, it will be incredible difficult to achieve numbers like that again. Bipartisanship on these fronts, unless Democrats can reach out to rural folks and people of different views on social issues and change their minds on economics, is also out of the picture.
When Liberals clamor about the need for social change, they fail to recognize that in order to get the numbers (plus a bit more for a safety cushion) to vote for legislation as ambitious as Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal and others they must overcome the obstacle of gerrymandering (incredible difficult) or abolish or amend the senate in such a way where it is proportional and less centered on the political geographic boundaries of the state (a fantasy.)
This is not to say that we should give up on voting and trying to change the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans, especially Republicans. But it is incumbent on Democrats to know when to pick our battles. Trump’s emergency deceleration can be a terrific opportunity to justify a national emergency again to tackle Climate Change and Income Inequality. Nancy Pelosi even said this herself.
With gerrymandering, Democrats failure on reaching out to rural voters, and the super majority in the senate, if Trump is successful in his deceleration it can open up a door to strengthen the executive in order to tackle broad, life threatening issues of poverty and global warming.
So I encourage the president to win on this front. Let him win on his wall so we can win the future.
-This is my first blog/article. Please give constructive feedback! :)