Sometimes the Most Aggressive Approach is Not the Most Effective (Domestic Politics Version)

 

That being said, let us be optimistic.  Let us assume that Democrats do win control of both houses of Congress, and that Trump fails to block them.  Then what?

My answer would be, instead of taking the most combative and intransigent position, take the smartest.  Understand that the most aggressive approach is not necessarily the most effective.  

We actually saw that illustrated quite well in the showdown over funding for ICE and Border Patrol.  Due to the insane way our budgetary rules are written, the Senate must have a 60-vote super-majority to pass an annual budget, but can pass a multi-year commitment to spending by a simple majority.  The One Bollixed Bonkers Bonanza had already allocated a $75 million dollar multi-year commitment of funding to ICE when its annual budget was previously only $10 million.  Democrats dug in their heels and demanded serious reforms as a precondition to any funding in the annual budget.  Republicans offered a requirement to use body cameras and training in de-escalation, both of which were in the law anyhow.  The standoff reached an unbreakable impasse, with neither side willing to yield, so Republicans circumvented the Democrats and passed a multi-year commitment of funds to take ICE and Border Patrol funding out of the annual budget altogether.  

So, sure, Democrats get bragging rights about never having yielded, but only at the cost of giving up any actual power.  In the clear light of hindsight, it would have been smarter for the Democrats to have agreed to one year of funding in return for requiring body cameras and de-escalation training. Would these restraints have been adequate?  Absolutely not!  Would the base have been outraged at the cave?  Almost certainly.  But if the Democrats had accepted these inadequate restraints, then assuming they were to win even the House of Representatives, they would be in a position to drive a hard bargain next year.  In return for annual funding, Democrats could demand real reforms such as:

• An end to quotas (admittedly hard to enforce)
• Keeping Border Patrol on the border
• Mandating a judicial warrant to enter a private space
• Protecting the independence of immigration judges
• Mandating bond for anyone with no criminal record and strong ties to the community
• Individual civil liability

In the end, Team Trump might have decided that it would rather forgo annual funding than agree to these terms, but even then the budget would have been smaller than it is now, giving ICE and Border Patrol less resources to do their damage.

Similar principles will apply assuming Democrats are able to control Congress and especially the Senate next year.

I think Democrats do understand this at least where impeachment is concerned, having learned it the hard way.  Donald Trump now has the dubious distinction of being the first President ever to be impeached twice.  But removal takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and it should be clear by now that Donald Trump could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and still not get the two-thirds vote to convict.  If the Senate would not convict him for inciting a riot that put their own lives in danger, what hope is there!  Instead, Democrats are making the smarter plan to investigate and expose.  If something comes up so outrageous that public opinion even among the MAGA faithful calls for impeachment, so be it.  But it seems saftest to assume that it will not.

There are also calls if Democrats take the Senate for them to reject all Trump nominees, whether executive or judicial.  I whole-heartedly agree on the judicial nominees.  Yes, I know, many conservative judges are outraged by Trump's behavior and seeking to reign him in.  But unless you are convinced that a nominee is a mainstream conservative who will do that (which seems most unlikely), reject Trump nominees.  Assuming you are exposing outrages by the Trump Administration in your hearing, explain to the American people that you will not approve any judge who would defend these outrages.

But executive nominees are a different matter, and for two reasons.  First, if you refuse to confirm a judge, the judicial post will remain vacant.  No temporary Trump-approved substitute will step in.  If you refuse to confirm an executive nominee, the President has considerable power to substitute and "acting" official instead.  Second, by making clear that you will never approve an executive nominee no matter what, you remove all incentive to fire a bad official.  What if the point if Trump knows he will not be able to appoint a replacement?