Why Sen. Susan Collins lost: the demise of a moderate

Why Susan Collins lost

The demise of a moderate

 

Gordon L. Weil

In 1987, I testified for Susan Collins to be confirmed as Maine Commissioner of Professional and Financial Regulation, a position both my wife and I had previously held.  My support proved justified as she did well in the post.  She deserves great credit for her efforts reforming Workers Compensation.

Collins was smart, competent and a member of a prominent Republican family that placed public service above political partisanship.  She once told me that she prized that tradition and sought to honor it.  But political moderation became impossible.  Adjusting to the GOP’s rightward shift became both a challenge and the ultimate source of the loss of her Senate seat.

When she went to Washington in 1997, she embodied that moderate tradition and promised to serve no more than two terms, evidence of her Senate tenure being public service not the beginning of a career stretching until 2027.  The changing political atmosphere and her own political ambition had their effect on her moderate stance.

In Maine, the Republican Party abandoned its good-government legacy for more conservative partisanship.  To avert challenges from the right, Collins accommodated the new GOP.  She maintained the image of civil moderation, allowing the GOP to hold onto the Senate seat by tolerating her lack of complete loyalty.

In Washington, she also adjusted to conservative reality.  To gain Senate influence, she had to serve her party’s needs, accepting its national policies while her demeanor allowed her to continue to project moderation at home.  But she needed to manage her political balance as Maine moved toward the Democrats.  By 2020, her election margin had narrowed.

She served with fellow Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, a moderate dedicated to compromise.  The contrast showed in the office space and committee assignments each was given by GOP leadership.  Collins could see the rewards of party loyalty, while Snowe stuck to her independence.  Ultimately Snowe chose to leave the Senate, while Collins climbed.

In Congress, members vote themselves “earmarks,” payments enabling each to take credit for bringing home federal money.  Earmarks were temporarily abandoned, but returned when incumbents could not resist their value in convincing voters to send them back for more.  To help her keep her seat, the party made Collins a prime harvester of federal cash.

With a bit of good luck, Collins rose to leadership of the Appropriations Committee, supposedly having a key role in deciding federal spending.  That helped in doling out earmarks, but the GOP’s unquestioning acceptance of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill meant her legislative power was limited.  She never exercised the influence she might have expected, but she hung on.

She could not use her almost demure image as protection in every situation.  She continues to be attacked for her vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  To many, he seemed sure to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but Collins interpreted her interview with him as assurance that he would not reverse its precedent.

The undercurrent of his failure to perform as she expected was that either she had been easily duped or that she was not telling voters the truth when she went along with Trump’s nominee.  She could never overcome such negative vibes.

Though the Maine media may have cast her as a titan based on her six terms, she isn’t in the same league as Margaret Chase Smith, Ed Muskie, Bill Cohen or George Mitchell.  All of them became nationally known figures and took political risks, bringing reflected credit to Maine.  That aura may still matter to Maine voters, and it was missing.

Her claim to moderation became hollow as time passed.  She occasionally expressed opposition to Trump, though it usually made no difference in critical votes.  She was not a leader who boldly took him on, ready to take political risks.  Her statements lacked force and became temporizing – speaking just enough to suit the needs of the moment.

Any person who holds public office long enough loses support, because some constituents will always be disappointed by their actions.  To some degree, political campaigning is meant to remind voters of the best and gloss over problems.  Campaigns depend on attacking the opponent.  Collins did all that, and ads run by her backers conflicted with her image.

She lost because of Trump, though not only because she had followed the loyalist GOP leadership.  She failed to recognize that her earmarks for firehouses meant little compared with the cost of gas, heating oil and food, increased by his tariffs and, above all, the Iran war.

On February 28, the day the war began, Trump began to lose the midterms, ultimately toppling the Republican Congress.  Collins might have saved herself if she had taken the risk of becoming the outspoken leader Maine wanted and needed.  The winner by default was Troy Jackson. 

The real and permanent effect of the midterms

 

The real and permanent effect of the midterms

More than who governs was decided

 

Gordon L. Weil

Benjamin Franklin famously told a questioner that the draft Constitution created “a republic if you can keep it.”

The midterm elections have similarly created an historic opportunity, if we can use it.  The liberal democracy that lasted from 1933 until 2017 must be replaced.  Trumpist authoritarianism has been rejected as its successor.  The U.S. now has the chance for a do-over.

What will be done with the opportunity depends on whether the Democrats try to meet public needs and undo Trump’s damage or resort mostly to feel-good retaliation.  It also depends on whether the surviving Republicans are ready to join in governing or can’t get over their loyalty to a failed president.  The next two years will tell people if even more reform is needed.

Whatever happens, the basis of the future may have been built this year.

A major concern of the extreme MAGA right was the demographic message that sometime in the next 20 years, the American majority will be non-white.  Race-based redistricting and closing down non-white immigration, legal or illegal, is evidence of this thinking.

Throughout most of U.S. history, running the country was the birthright of white men. Everybody else either stayed in the kitchen or were treated like immature children (to put slavery, racism and discrimination in its best light).  This election marked the end of that history.

The election results show both the inevitability of demographic change and that many white people don’t worry about it.  The hallmarks of change, real and permanent, are all around. 

The House of Representatives is to be led by a Black.  The Senate by a Jew.  Texas by a Latina.  New Mexico by a member of the Laguna Pueblo tribe.

Among the most stunning signs of change is the likely election of the first Black senator from Mississippi not to have been chosen under federal occupation during Reconstruction.  Though not political, another indicator is the pride of a once anti-Catholic country in the leadership of an American pope.  

More than 100 Democratic women are expected to serve in the House along with almost 30 Republican women.  While these numbers do not reflect the percentage of women in the population, they will have a strong influence on public policy.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a trailblazer.  The trail is now open.  The majority leader will be a woman.  

On the Senate side, there have been 27 women from both parties serving.  Next year, for the first time, three Black women will be senators, and a state will be represented by two women of color.

In state capitols, at least 17 governors will be women, mostly Democrats.   Nationwide, about one-third of state legislators are women.  Both numbers are increasing.

The number of Blacks in high public office is also growing.  Florida and Georgia, once Confederate states, elected Black governors, one a Republican and the other a Democrat.  There will be five Black governors, four newly elected.  There may be as many as seven African American senators. 

This is progress for seating Blacks, but it is only a partial success.   The Supreme Court has placed obstacles in the path of electing Blacks to Congress by allowing race-based redistricting in some states.  The long-ago Massachusetts creator of gerrymandering probably did not envisage the tool being used for racial discrimination.

The trends toward a more open government have been under way for decades.  But the Democratic victories this year have pushed them ahead farther and faster.  If the Democrats need to find a common policy shared by moderates and progressives, it could be continuing their efforts to open more doors for more people.

The Republicans talk about their need to attract minorities.  The elections this year show they have failed.  The Democrats have “the big mo” –momentum.  The GOP has to stop itself from going backwards.

Trump, who is the godfather of Cabinet firings, has dismissed only women so far.  This would be a good moment for him to clean house, though he would surely lose some champion sycophants.  The most likely candidate seems to be Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whose abuse of power otherwise sets him up for impeachment.

Most of this year’s new faces have risen to public office from modest beginnings.  They represent a triumph of merit over power derived from tax breaks, political skill over brute financial force.  The American system makes both possible, but voters have shown their sentiments by rating corruption as one key reason for their dumping Republicans.

Trump could be a good Republican and halt deficit spending.  That might mean raising the tax bills on himself and his Fortune 400 friends.  The rule of celebrity and wealth, with its gilded office, overblown East Wing, and triumphal arch, must end.  Trump should take a good look at himself in the reflecting pool.

Otherwise, 2026 was just the beginning.

Voters on brink of a major correction --more at stake than next Congress

Voters on brink of a major correction

More at stake than next Congress

 

Gordon L. Weil

On election night, the congressional seat count will be the focus.

Will Trump and his MAGA Republicans be rejected?  Will Democratic progressives advance their movement at the expense of moderates?  Whose votes made the difference – women, young, stay-at-homes?   Pundits, candidates and campaigns will have ready answers.  But there may be more to the outcome than these immediate conclusions. 

Three currents run through the electorate.   Right-wing Trumpers, traditional moderates and left-wing progressives have been seeking acceptance by the voters.  Just as 2020 signaled a turning point with Trump’s comeback and his emphasis on authoritarian government, voters this year may make a correction, either returning to moderation or turning toward liberalism.

The U.S. is an historically conservative country.  But the Great Depression so disrupted it that an enhanced role for government under the liberal New Deal became necessary and possible.  Social Security was its hallmark. 

After the Second World War, the U.S. tried to live up to the lessons it had learned.  Reacting to the defeat of Nazi fascism and the growing rivalry with Communist dictatorship, the country stayed the course.

One symbol of the new American center was the Supreme Court decision ending legal racial discrimination.  A national road network was built for the first time.  Voting rights were extended to more of the population, notably Blacks and the young.  Medicare was created.  Environmental rules began to be written.

Congress could often find compromises on major issues.   While some deep disagreements existed, congressional cooperation reflected a broad national consensus based on shared values.  Each side accepted some of the arguments of the other, and losses did not result in all-out political war.

But voters became discontented, because the government, though liberated from historic conservatism, had not paid adequate attention to the hopes and needs of many people.  Discrimination persisted.  Prosperity did not live up to political promises.  Taxes had grown too far and too fast.   Some voters believed they were losing control.

People increasingly wanted change and were frustrated when it did not happen.   Donald Trump, searching for a winning platform, cultivated this discontent and made it into his program.  Though to many it seemed like a marginal view, he managed to use his celebrity to develop and exploit and grow this part of the electorate.

Surprisingly to many, he succeeded.  He was unconstrained by historical norms and drew support from many who gave change a higher priority than continuity.  In 2024, he defeated the moderate center that had failed to bring about change.  Trump took his victory as not only for a mandate for his right-wing movement but as an endorsement of his free-wheeling, egotistical style.

Given broad authority by the Supreme Court, he exceeded even the greatly loosened norms.   He openly enriched himself.  He began a war he could not finish, imposing heavy costs on average people, including even his most steadfast supporters.  He tried to manipulate the legal system.  He bragged and he threatened, even his closest allies.  His ambitions grew, but his popularity fell.

Because he was so closely identified with the Republican Party that had been swallowed by his MAGA, his problems became his party’s problems.   This year’s elections are a judgment on Trump, which he invited, but also on the future of the movement he has headed.

Just as the right became unhappy with politics as usual, so did the left.  The government’s agenda looks backwards and favors the wealthy elite over average people.  The left wants to restore and augment government to support the broad popular needs, such as for health care.  The right scorns it as socialist, but it has sought to make community interest equal to individual interest.

Progressives seek government social benefit programs, financed by higher taxes on the wealthy who have been favored by Trump.  They might support his closed borders but not indiscriminate deportations.  They respond to calls for change by forward-looking policies rather than a return to an unrecoverable past.

The Democratic progressives have been tested by these elections.  Voters may reveal wider acceptance of the progressive agenda or simply conclude that it is an isolated outburst of frustration whose goals are not broadly popular.

The returns will show if Trump’s MAGA can withstand its setbacks and continue to rule with a brand of authoritarianism that suits the public mood for dismantling much of what the moderates built.  If it has failed, it may leave behind thousands of bitter and disaffected citizens.

The progressives have faced closer scrutiny by the voters.  If they succeed, they will be serious contenders to lead the Democratic Party in 2028.  If they have failed, they probably will hang on to fight another day.

The future of the moderates depends on whether the traditional GOP can be revived and the Democrats’ platform, dictated by whoever emerges to lead them.   That process begins now.

 

The GOP: bitter, but possibly liberated as elections bring a chance for change

 

The GOP: bitter, but possibly liberated

Elections bring a chance for change

 

Gordon L. Weil

In the wake of next week’s midterm elections, two images of the Republican Party may emerge, one a renewal of bitter conflict and the other more constructive.

One will be the MAGA reaction to the results.   Trump has created the model of what you do when you lose an election.   The losers charge it was tainted by illegal voting and dishonest vote counting.   That leads to claims that the election was invalid and the results should be nullified.  The challenges are settled in court.   Meanwhile, the winners cannot take office.

It’s not clear what would happen next, because, lacking evidence, it never gets that far.  Possibly, new elections.  Certainly, confidence in the democratic system would be undermined with the aim of more authoritarian rule.  Chaos is the goal, not a different outcome.  That’s what occurred in 2020.

The Democrats seem to have helped the Trump effort to question the results.  In Alaska, they found a person with an almost identical name as incumbent GOP Sen. Dan S. Sullivan to run with the intent of confusing voters.   That’s not illegal, but the revelation is not likely to help the Democratic candidate.

Even before the election, Trump’s Department of Justice asked the federal district court to block the result if the senator loses but would have won with the votes of the duplicate candidate.

Such an order would not be possible.  The court would have to assume, without knowing, who voted for the copy candidate and why.  

The DOJ probably knows that.  But the case boosts Trump’s claim that the Democrats undermine free elections.  Before the revelation of their promoting the copy, they had denied any connection with his candidacy.  It matters little that the Alaska situation does not involve either phantom voters or dishonest vote counting; it adds to the atmosphere of distrust.

A Blue Wave, with big Democratic margins, could discourage GOP claims, but challenges are highly likely.  The Democrats have set up an election protection task force.  Federal district courts should be ready to decide promptly unless the Republicans have evidence and not mere suspicion. 

The immediate aftermath of the elections could produce the political chaos that voting irregularity charges are meant to cause.   The lame duck Congress will try to pass many Trump policies while the GOP still controls the government and uncertainty swirls.   The election effect won’t be over until the new Congress is seated.  

If the Democrats gain control of one or both houses of Congress in January, they may investigate the Trump administration and will surely hold hearings to restage those conducted by the GOP.   They will try to block Trump’s judicial and executive nominations and will try to take control of the legislative agenda.  Republicans will resist.

Democrats and many political analysts assume that the GOP members will remain almost monolithic in their support for the president and his agenda, just as they were in the first two years of this Trump term.  Whatever the Democrats may try, they assume a united GOP opposition, still committed to the Trump agenda.

This assumption could be incorrect.  The election may not only reshape the Democrats, but the results may influence congressional Republicans.  Some Republicans may be liberated from their blind loyalty to Trump.

Even if Trump himself remains unyielding, Republican members of Congress will most likely have to deal with the realities highlighted by the elections.  Congressional Republicans may increasingly want to determine their own political fates, rather than falling in line behind a weakened and lame duck Trump.  

They would have good reasons to change course.

1. Trump is deeply unpopular.   Voters have begun to focus on what they see as his corruption and his willingness to attack anyone or any country disagreeing with him.  He is not only a lame duck, but his endorsement of primary opponents in 2028 may carry little weight, meaning GOP legislators have less to fear.

2. Bringing down prices and inflation tops the agenda.  As Bill Clinton said, “It’s not about woke.  It’s about broke.”  Trump’s social policy focus has fail to take attention away from the economic hardship of many Americans.

3. Trump’s immigration policy worked, but his deportation policy didn’t.  ICE should stop tracking down respectable, long-term residents, who contribute to the economy and focus on lawbreakers, as promised.   

4. The unpopular Iran war must be ended, and Ukraine should be supported.

5. Issues like Social Security cannot be ignored any longer and virtually require either an overwhelming majority of one party or really working across the aisle, thus strengthening Congress.

The Republicans will have a choice between fighting a rearguard battle supporting Trump trying to maintain some control by blocking the Democrats or reading the election results as a call to begin the renewal of the Grand Old Party.

Congress again cedes power to president

 

Congress again cedes power to president

The case for sunset law

 

Gordon L. Weil

Congress is routinely criticized for its inaction, weakness, and failure to perform its constitutional duties.  Two recent cases prove the point.

Upon his return from one of his regular visits to Ukraine, Lindsay Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, suddenly died.  President Zelenskyy lost one his most staunch American supporters, a leader in opposition to Russia’s war against his country.  Graham was also an ally of President Trump.

With strong GOP majority support, both houses of Congress promptly passed a bill to impose tight controls on the oil sales that Russia was using to finance its war.  The bill was named in Graham’s honor and was signed by Trump, meaning the law would go into effect almost immediately.

Concerned about the effect of rising oil prices on Republican chances in the midterm elections and continuing to be enthralled by Putin’s autocratic control of Russia, Trump used a waiver in the Lindsay O. Graham Act to suspend limits it imposed.  This action accompanied his decision to allow American diesel purchases directly from Russia.

In effect, the law was just for show and Congress had done nothing, missing the opportunity to take real action on the Ukraine war, using the situation created by Graham’s unexpected death.  In effect, it committed legislative suicide.

Under the act, the president may waive any sanction on Russia by simply filing a report with Congress explaining the justification for the waiver. No further action is required, and the waiver has no time limit.

Presidential termination of any sanction requires congressional review and risks rejection, subject to the need to overcome a presidential veto.  Termination could be irrelevant if a president’s waiver continued endlessly.  Congress again recovered none of the powers it has ceded to the president over decades, retreating from its leadership role under the Constitution.

The result, as shown by Trump’s action, is that the bill is meaningless.  And so is Congress.  It is reasonable to wonder if any member ever read the bill through to the end or if they concurred in an act that they knew was an empty gesture.  If they had thought it could be politically useful to have voted for it, Trump deprived them of that small benefit.

In the second case, Trump took advantage of congressional inaction.

In 1930, Congress passed the highly protectionist Smoot-Hawley tariff.  History has assigned it a role as one of the major contributors to the Great Depression that devastated the economy of the 1930s.  

The act was so extreme that some of the authority given to the president had not been used during any of the next 16 presidencies.  An obvious failure, it went unused, but Congress failed to repeal it.

Believing that the American trade deficit is evidence of extensive exploitation by other countries, Trump launched high tariffs against most other countries.  He targeted Canada, which, unlike other countries, responded by raising its own tariffs.  Two-way retaliation emerged, but Trump believed that Canada favored other countries, which had not lifted their tariffs.

Section 338 of Smoot-Hawley gives the president power to retaliate against other countries if they discriminate against American exports, and he used it to impose 50 percent duties on Canada.  This law escapes most of the limits that allowed the Supreme Court to strike down his broader effort to raise tariffs.  Its use has created real hostility between Canada and the U.S.

These two cases reveal defects in the relationship between the president and Congress.  Limiting itself to general policy and glossing over key administrative details, Congress gives the president wide powers in carrying out its intent.  The president’s power is so unrestrained, that the chief executive may counteract the very intent of the legislation.

The Supreme Court has found that the president has almost unlimited power.  The only checks on his discretion are impeachment and conviction or elections.  Once granted a power, the president can distort or ignore its limits.  Only the Court can determine if the president violated the law, but it sees almost all presidential actions as protected by executive authority.

These cases offer two messages about congressional authority over presidents.

First, all legislation giving any authority to the president should be subject to sunset. After a limited period of time, the grant of executive powers would automatically terminate unless renewed for a similar period by subsequent votes.  It would be worth exploring if Congress could now enact a sunset rule applying to all current laws.

Second, a bipartisan body should be formed to identify laws that are duplicative, unused or in need of updating. Congress could then be required to take action on them.

If Congress continues giving presidents unlimited authority on the assumption that an elected leader will follow democratic norms, it will continue to see its power eroded.  It has options; it should use them.

 

 

Trump, always dominant, now seems desperate

 

Trump, always dominant, now seems desperate

Power ebbs, as time passes

 

Gordon L. Weil

Trump’s time is passing.

He has been at the center of national affairs for 10 years. History teaches that, without dictatorial control, political power often passes in about a decade.  Hitler, the worst despot in history, lasted 12 years.  Napoleon was French emperor for 10 years. 

Under a democratic system, U.S. presidents are limited to two four-year terms.  French President Macron is nearing the end of his ten-year presidency.

No matter how popular a national leader may be, their standing begins to erode the moment they take office.  The reasons are obvious.

Officeholders make decisions, and even positive moves have negative consequences.  Adversely affected groups grow, decreasing the initial popularity of an office holder.  President Trump’s immigration enforcement, going well beyond “the worst of the worst,” has undermined support among some minorities.

Another cause of lost popularity occurs when promises made during an election campaign are not kept or, even worse, the opposite action is adopted.  Trump has emphasized that he keeps his promises, contributing to his electoral appeal.  But the Iran war has marked a departure from his promises to avoid lengthy foreign wars and to bring prices down.

During a leader’s term, they exhaust the promises inherent in their campaign platform.  Either they achieve their goals or they abandon them.  Voters grow tired of their leadership, limiting their influence.  Trump made big promises on tariffs and their economic effects.  When he failed to produce promised results, voters suffered long-term harm and their confidence in him waned.

At their worst, a long-term leader may become overly impressed by their supposed popular support and their resulting power, which may encourage them to go beyond acceptable limits.  They may believe they can exercise unlimited discretion.   The enrichment of Trump and his family, thanks to his presidency, has produced hostility from people who had supported him.

While these trends may exist for any leader as their term lengthens, they have become especially evident for Trump.  The problem for him, as it has been for many of his predecessors in history, is hubris, defined as “exaggerated pride or self-confidence.”

He is unyielding in his self praise and his claims to intellectual superiority over just about anybody else.  It showed in his campaign claim that, “I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created.”   Hubris allows him to override good advice in favor of his own instincts, often unsupported by facts. 

His super self-confidence radiates out through his undeniable charisma.  His unchecked and assertive personality arises from a career in forcing his way to success.  Assertion is everything and denial is absolute.  His personal style has been the key element in the creation of a core of supporters –the essential MAGA followers – whose allegiance is cult-like.

As his appeal erodes, Trump has two ways of retaining his authority.  One, the more dangerous, is to sabotage the political system so that elections, the central mechanism of popular control, are undermined by baseless challenges.  That is the story of the 2020 presidential election and its aftermath in the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The other tool Trump uses is a series of efforts to gain popular support with government largesse.  Here are his major offers:

1. DOGE dividend.  As much as $5,000, it was to be paid from savings in federal government operations.  While it did not happen, Trump has proposed a payment to each adult American citizen of $5,000, if the Republicans win the midterms and presumably have the votes for this $1 trillion plus payout.

2. Warrior dividend.  Members of the Armed Forces were paid $1,776 as a one-time bonus.  Redirected from military housing.

3. Tariff dividends or rebates.  Taxpayers were promised $2,000 either from tariff benefits or to compensate for the costs of tariffs, later ruled unlawful.  Nothing has been paid.

4. Trump accounts. A $1,000 one-time payment funds education accounts for a limited group of children.  Approved by Congress, these payments have begun.

5. Affordable Care Act rebates.  Some, facing large premium increases, receive $500 redirected from existing Obamacare funds.  Payments have begun.

6. Medicare Part B.  Many Medicare recipients will receive $90 from the program. Payments from another designated purpose have begun.

Faced with skyrocketing diesel prices resulting from the Iran war, Trump moved to lift sanctions on Russia, allowing diesel sales that he hoped would lower prices.  Intended to help with the midterms and reduce Iran war opposition, it will not work, because it is too little and too late.  Trump has also ignored deep popular dislike of doing favors for Russia. 

His other last-minute moves are likely to fail.  To swing voters, he may now appear desperate, no longer dominant.

For Trump, hubris carries him onward, and he concludes, “Bottom line, it’s all gonna work out.   You know why?  It always does.”

Senate could make a comeback, depends on Democrats and GOP independence

 

Senate could make a comeback

Depends on Democrats and GOP independence

 

Gordon L. Weil

The U.S. Senate is in trouble. 

It is so evenly divided that it gets little done.  And its role as the deliberative institution of the government, moderating the supposedly short-term moves by the House, has been taken over by the Supreme Court.  Laws enacted by Congress, approved by the president and in effect for extended periods are being overturned by Court majorities.  It also reverses its own precedents.

If the Democrats gain Senate control, they could focus on whether to consent to President Trump’s judicial and executive appointments.  No Supreme Court vacancies now exist, but the age of the two most senior justices might make their retirements possible. 

If a Court vacancy should occur, the Democrats could follow the GOP precedents.  It refused even to review an Obama nominee almost 8 months before a presidential election.  That nominee was a moderate, thought possibly to gain bipartisan approval.  (Later, the GOP Senate approved a Trump nominee just a month before an election.)  

Other Trump nominations to the federal bench or executive agencies could face outright rejection.  And any Trump legislation would be threatened by the filibuster, if he were unable to find the needed 60 senators to allow a vote.

Democrats could pass spending bills by a simple majority, using the well-worn reconciliation mechanism that has allowed the GOP to pass budget bills while avoiding the filibuster.   Trump’s potential use of the veto could place Republican senators in the difficult position of voting against popular bills in favor of supporting their president.

Trump, who does not want to concede the outcome before the election, has wavered between declaring that he will reject Democratic bills and acknowledging the possibility of at least some compromise.  To get a bill that he could claim as part of his legacy, he might be willing to give some ground.

To get started, he would need to talk with Democratic congressional leaders instead of talking about them.  He should drop calling them “Dumocrats” and speaking of the “Democrat Party.”   The first step toward compromise would come from treating the Democrats with minimal respect and backing off campaign-style claims they are Socialists or Communists.

If the Democrats control both the House, which is likely, and the Senate, which is possible, they will have leverage in dealing with Trump.  The House could seek to impeach him leading to a trial by the Senate.  Under the Democrats, this trial could be a full-scale proceeding, even if there were no chance of convicting him.

Democrats could have a powerful way of putting pressure on him to negotiate.  Good faith talks between the two sides induce them to hold off on any meaningful impeachment effort.  Trump’s presidency is mostly about himself, so that could be a result greatly desired by him.

Even if the Senate comes under Democratic control, much will depend on just who the Democrats are.  While there will be both moderates and progressives among them, one side or the other might set the agenda.  Or they might find themselves more focused on their intra-party struggles than on Trump.

The Democratic mix could be critical for the next two years.  If the Party concludes that the message from the voters calls for broad change, progressives may make compromise impossible, leaving the party’s platform to the 2028 primaries.  If moderates control, they may seek to deal with Trump, assuming he’s willing.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, the potential Senate leader, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the presumed new House Speaker, could follow Biden’s pattern and try to return to the post World War II brand of liberal politics.  That would not meet the popular demand for change.  And if the Democrats choose to investigate Trump, ultra-partisan hearings could promote divisiveness.

The GOP senators will also need to regroup.  Instead of worrying about Trump’s retaliation, given his lame duck status and weakened influence, they could stake out their own policies.  And they could join with Democrats on a few key pieces of legislation.

Before the new Congress is seated, Trump may stage an assault on the results, deploying his loyalists to challenge and undermine them.  The conflict between election officials, especially in states where upsets occurred, and Trump could be epic. 

Then, the Senate, with many presidential hopefuls, will immediately be somewhat overshadowed by the start of the 2028 presidential election campaign. 

Despite the clashes and controversies, both parties have an interest in placing limits on the Supreme Court’s ability to displace Congress when it overrules long-standing legislation.  Congress has the constitutional right to define and limit the Court’s jurisdiction, though ultimately a president would have to accept such reform legislation

The Senate should use its new term to start the lengthy process of recovering its role as the Constitution’s deliberative body.  If not, it may become even more irrelevant.