Congress vs. the President

Rick Morain

“There’s Got to Be a Morning After” — 1973 hit song, sung by Maureen McGovern (no relation to George McGovern)

I’m writing this column before Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 3. That’s by design. nnNo matter which party ends up controlling Congress, or whether control is split by party between the House and the Senate, the main question remains: what will happen after the new Congress is sworn in in early January?

Will Congress in the two years left of President Trump’s second term reassert its constitutional responsibilities, or will Trump, empowered by recent Supreme Court decisions, continue to run roughshod over Congress, with that body’s permission?

If Republicans should happen to retain control of both the House and Senate — unlikely, according to almost all pre-election polls — GOP lawmakers might leave the President unchecked, as now. But with Trump powerless to continue in office after 2028, a number of congressional Republicans could veer onto a more independent course. Nearly all Democrats would join them in that regard. A lame-duck president is traditionally less powerful than during his early years in office.

Congress has constitutional tools it could employ to defang the President. The Senate, for instance, must approve a President’s major appointments. The President is allowed certain temporary appointments, but only for a limited time. And that leeway doesn’t apply for judicial appointments. A Senate that has chafed for two long years under the Presidential thumb might want to exercise more discretion on who holds all-important government positions.

The House, for its part, has the power of the purse. The Constitution mandates that all revenue-raising bills originate in the U.S. House, and by longstanding tradition and custom, the same practice applies to appropriations bills. A more independent-minded House of Representatives, whether under Democratic or Republican control, could choose to force negotiation on presidential priorities by using money-related issues as a cudgel.

But suppose Democrats, after the Election Day returns are finally in the book with challenges resolved, end up controlling both the House and the Senate for the next two years. What would that mean for the governing of America?

American history provides a checkered answer to that question.

In 1866 Andrew Johnson held office as President, having been inaugurated following Republican Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in April 1965 shortly after the end of the Civil War. Johnson, a Tennessee Democrat, had been elected on the 1864 ticket as Lincoln’s vice presidential candidate under the “unionist” party label.

Johnson strongly supported the Northern union cause, and was willing to accept ending slavery as the 13th Amendment proposed. But that was as far as he went on civil rights for black people. He strongly opposed black equality on other issues, and because Congress was not in session at the time of Lincoln’s death, Johnson moved quickly to take presidential action to restore nearly all Southern rebels to most of their previous white supremacy status.

Congress returned to Washington in January 1866. Overwhelmingly dominated  by Republicans who sought rights for blacks in previous slave states, at least in part in order to make inroads into the Democratic-dominated “Solid South,” Congress set about to undo many of Johnson’s actions.

Overwhelming GOP control of Congress continued after the 1866 election. The 14th and 15th Amendments, giving blacks equality with whites on civil rights and black men the right to vote (all women would have to wait several decades), were placed on a path for enactment under those Republican majorities.

And of course, in 1868 Republicans impeached Andrew Johnson in the House, and conviction failed by only a single vote in the Senate. It wasn’t until 1876 that Republicans ceded control of Southern states back to Southern Democrats, who promptly divested blacks of their postwar rights.

Divided government proved highly contentious in those years. Another example of bitter division is the final two years of President Woodrow Wilson’s second term (1919-21).

After Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire were defeated in World War One in 1918, the victorious United Kingdom, France, and the United States met to draw up the terms of surrender. President Wilson offered his “Fourteen Points” proposal, with the creation of a League of Nations as its centerpiece.

Wilson had enjoyed Democratic control of Congress the first six years of his two terms in office. But Republicans gained control of both houses in the 2018 election, and they seized on the League of Nations concept as a major bone of contention with Wilson, both for political reasons and out of a sincere concern that joining the League might mean giving up a degree of U.S. sovereignty in foreign affairs

Led by Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, the Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles and its League of Nations in November 2019. Wilson had taken an exhausting cross-country train tour to promote the treaty in the fall, and suffered a stroke in October, only a few weeks before the vote. It left him mostly incapacitated for the remainder of his term.

On the other hand...

President Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 and served for two four-year terms. The first two years Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. But Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich,   won control in 1994 and continued in control for the remainder of Clinton’s six years.

The Democratic Administration and the Republican Congress often fought bitterly during those years, even shutting down the government twice because they couldn’t agree on some important matters.

But even so, Clinton and Gingrich managed to fashion a bipartisan financial agreement in 1997 that balanced the federal budget from 1998 through 2001. That certainly has not happened in the years since then, regardless of who controlled the Presidency or Congress. The Clinton-Gingrich agreement not only balanced the budget; it actually paid down some of the federal debt during those years.

These historical episodes point up a central fact in American governance: divided government doesn’t necessarily require perpetual gridlock. And one-party dominance doesn’t necessarily require slavish congressional obedience to the President.

The House, the Senate, and the President retain freedom of choice in how they decide to act. Will it be for what they think will benefit the American people? Or will it be to milk the offices to which they’ve been entrusted for their own benefit?

Rick Morain is a reporter and columnist with the Jefferson Herald.