🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the role of the U.S. Congress? In the second presidency of Donald Trump, it is difficult to tell. The power to declare war, long considered a crucial legislative power, has turned into a unclear prerogative of the executive branch in the time since September 11; Trump, in the past few months, has claimed even more of that power for himself, conducting military actions on boats in the Caribbean Sea.

The authority over spending appears to be largely been taken away from Congress as well; currently, under the leadership of budget chief, Russell Vought, a great deal of the ability to allocate federal funds has likewise defaulted to the presidency, with the White House claiming the ability to cancel legislatively approved spending and seeking to redirect the funds to other uses. It’s as if they’re passing any legislation, either; virtually all bills must currently be packed into budget reconciliation bills, huge perennial must-spend comprehensive bills that can circumvent the filibuster. But when these don’t pass – and more and more, they do not – the federal government simply shuts down. That is, large sections of the government shut down – and it’s not clear how many people are aware. Currently, the federal government has been closed all month; there are no signs of it reopening in the near future. But the presidency continues operating smoothly.

And so the issue of dominance of Congress can appear rather moot. Why should Americans be concerned who holds a majority in a body that has mostly rendered itself powerless?

In what way ‘oppose the president’ rhetoric may help California’s Proposition 50 prevail

And yet Prop 50, the Golden State’s redistricting referendum that could deliver five more House seats to the Democratic Party if it is embraced by the electorate in a upcoming vote in the coming weeks, has captured the attention of liberals nationwide. In part, it is a belated reaction to developments happening in other states: GOP-led states have long embraced extreme partisan gerrymandering while big Democratic-controlled such as the Golden State, New York and the Evergreen State create their maps via nonpartisan redistricting panels, an imbalance that has resulted in closely divided control of the House and a longstanding feeling, by the left, that their party is at a disadvantage. The California proposal is clearly intended as a countermove to a mid-term redrawing of maps that recently passed in Texas, which installed boundaries that will give the GOP an additional five positions in the state House representation next year; comparable boundary changes are under way in states such as Missouri and Indiana. (The left in Virginia are also following the state’s example in attempting to alter districts.)

The California initiative seems probable to pass, as Democratic and liberal voters react with fear and anger to the president’s authoritarian centralization of authority and look for methods to restrain his worst tendencies. But Prop 50 is not free from debate. Some critics caution that the move could backfire, with blue states’ attempts to redistrict setting off a retaliatory cycle in which red states do additional to design their maps so as to foreclose any possibility of opposition party success. Others have questioned the proposal on strictly ideological pro-democracy bases: a electoral area that is drawn in such a manner that the outcome of the election is never really in doubt, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be truly representative: it implies, necessarily, that the power of opposing views is suppressed, and that the procedure of deliberation, discussion and persuasion that is supposed to characterize a healthy political system will be limited only to primary elections, if it happens at all.

It is worth considering each of these objections on their own terms. The initial critique, that the measure will provoke the right to redraw their own maps in response, does not hold up as a logical point: it is illogical to say that the GOP will be made to behave in undemocratic ways by the left’s actions when they are already engaging in such behavior without those actions. The GOP, I would observe, has required no any motivation of revenge to change boundaries that secure permanent positions for themselves: they have been willing to do this for their own benefit, in the total lack of Democratic reciprocation, for years.

The second objection, I think, is more significant, expressing not just a tactical disagreement about how to address the Republicans’ undemocratic turn, but a sort of sad wish for a distinct nation than the one that the United States has become. It is true that in a better world – in the reality that the majority of Democrats, I think, yearn for and aspire to – the proposition would be unappealing to our values, and not mandated by our circumstances. It is undesirable to manipulate targeted population groups; it is harmful for politicians to choose their voters, rather than the reverse; it is not good that elections are rendered uncontested. That these measures have grown necessary in order to impede the autocratic creep of Trump’s control and lessen the amount of harm he is able to cause is unfortunate; it is a sign of how far we have declined from a state more like a representative government. But they are required. It is only after the battle against Trumpism has been successfully concluded that we can mourn what opposing it has transformed us into.

If Congress does not in reality have lawmaking, military or budgetary authority, what is it, exactly, that the proposition’s five new Democratic house members will be sent to the capital to do? One aspect that Congress still retains is the authority to compel testimony, and the ability to investigate. Even in our era of sclerotic government and congressional atrophy, it has made use of that authority to significant impact. In 2027, if the measure passes and the state’s new representatives are sworn in, they will find themselves a part of a institution with the power to probe Trump, to broadcast their hearings into his conduct and to compel associates of his close advisors to give evidence. It’s significant, and crucially, it’s not something that any Republican would do.

• The columnist is a news outlet writer