UPDATE: With the recent struggles of the GOP to elect a Speaker of the House, the idea that no one party or even wing within a party has the power to unilaterally dictate policy has been greatly reinforced. I have to wonder if the interests of the majority wing of the GOP, and the nation as a whole, might be served by an across the aisle compromise – a coalition-style government wherein certain posts are awarded to Democrats in exchange for the votes to break the current logjam. Unworkable? Perhaps. A step in governing through a tie? Perhaps.
Today marks the beginning of a new Congress. The Senate is narrowly held by Democrats; the House of Representatives is narrowly held by Republicans. Here is hoping that our leadership awakens to the fact that neither side have won the hearts and minds of the American people.
Recent elections have been extremely close to ties. The party and the elected officials best able to establish coalitions will be the real winners! This may mean allowing the other side to claim some amount of credit in providing for the good of the people.
There is no wave!
We hear from time to time about “red waves” and “blue waves”, usually as they are either about to appear or have failed to materialize. Occasionally, we see significant swings in Congress, but they are usually on the backs of consist, yet slim, majorities.
In looking back on several national elections, we see that in spite of regional differences the nation as whole is fairly evenly divided. Even Barak Obama’s 2012 victory over Mitt Romney, which was trumpeted as a 332 – 206 electoral vote victory was decided by less than three percentage points. Obama won only 51% of the popular vote. Donald Trump became president while losing in the popular vote by two percentage points. Joe Biden became president with only 51% of the popular vote.
In each case, there were the usual discussions about the “mandate” of the people, or the somewhat tired phrase, “Elections have consequences”. In each case the entering administration began down paths that traveled along solely partisan lines.
The 2022 mid-terms were no different. In fact, I am not far off in stating the two major political parties battled their way to a tie.
Political Implications
Politically, a narrow majority leaves room for a few different strategies, not all of which are wise. There is the strategy that seeks to consolidate gains whenever possible recognizing that they easily go away even in the near term. This approach seems to be in vogue today as we see far-reaching programs advanced by slim majorities. In particular, discussions on changing rules such as the Senate filibuster which provide protection for the minority parties reflect this strategy.
A second, less popular, approach is to simply block progress and blame the other side. The hope here is that once the impacts of government inaction are realized votes will change. This strategy is often touted as a noble refusal to yield.
The third approach, which I personally favor, is to reach out and find areas of common concern in which to build coalitions that can advance public policy. This is more than looking for a few defectors from the other party, but an honest effort to find areas where cooperation is possible. At its best, the areas where cooperation is possible can be expanded to areas where cooperation is difficult but desirable.
Moral Implications
With regard to morality, government’s role is to provide for a fair, well-ordered, society. We can divide this into three parts all directed toward advancing the common good: (i) peace and security, (ii) social support, and (iii) advancing initiatives of value.
Peace and security relate both to external and internal threats. Governments should provide for both of these. The moral obligation to provide support for those at the margins of society does not fade in the face of narrow majorities. The advance of initiatives of value does, however, become more complicated. A broad mandate in a particular area provides government with the necessary assent to proceed with programs to advance society. In today’s political environment, no broad mandate exists. At this stage, consensus building is key toward advancing a single agenda, and coalition-building is the key toward advancing a set of agendas mutually acceptable to both sides.[1]
Rather than pretending that 51% is a significant mandate, my hope is that our leadership will work toward building a consensus and establishing the necessary coalitions. Rather than gridlock, where each side claims its unwillingness to compromise as victory, my hope is that our leadership will rise to the task of creating the space necessary to find an agenda that many can support.
That ability, which seems to be a lost art, will carry the day and define the true winner.
[1] Some would point to the recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion as a violation of this notion. I do not. I place the abortion question directly under the requirement of government to protect the most vulnerable, to provide a voice for the voiceless.