Policy Implications of the American Midterms
After two years of unusual productivity, gridlock is returning to Washington. Last month, Americans voted in a set of elections that occur at the halfway-point of the president’s term - the midterms. The midterms are critically important as they determine control of the federal government’s legislative branch, as well as various other state and local offices. In the United States, the legislative branch is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and policy must be passed in both chambers (and signed by the president) before it can become law. For the past two years, Biden and the Democrats have had the luxury of controlling both, allowing them to pass a series of historic policy initiatives related to the pandemic, climate change, and infrastructure.
However, the midterms have changed the dynamic of one-party control. Although the Democrats managed to keep the Senate, they lost their House majority, meaning that Republicans will have veto power over all policy proposals that move through the legislature. House Republicans have already indicated their intention to block bills such as the ones that were passed during the first half of Biden’s tenure and will instead focus their resources on investigating Biden, his family, and members of his cabinet. As political scientist Gregory Kroger explains in his 2010 book Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate, general obstructionism has been a key strategy for opposition parties throughout American history, and the next two years will surely be no different. Although it is clear that legislative victories for Democrats will be hard to come by over the next two years, how does this midterm outcome affect the less obvious ways that the federal government influences American domestic and foreign policy?
First, Ukraine. Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US has provided the vast majority of global economic and military aid to the embattled nation. In fact, the Biden administration recently requested that Congress provide an additional $37 billion in aid to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his war effort. Those funds include military and intelligence-related support, and humanitarian and economic aid. Commentators have noted that this aid is critical to contain the Russian invasion and to ensure the continued economic existence of Ukraine. Despite this, House Republican Leader and prospective Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy said in October that “I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they're not going to write a blank check to Ukraine.” This comment comes amidst general discontent among House Republicans with respect to the large sums of money that have been dedicated to Ukraine. However, it is important to note that Republican leadership has not expressed a willingness to put a complete stop to the flow of American money to Zelenskyy, but it is worth noting that the political dynamics of American aid money will shift significantly in this new Congress.
Next, judges. As in many other liberal democracies, the judiciary in the United States has significant power in determining what policies are considered legal and how those policies are interpreted. This reality was made especially clear to the public during the summer when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that had previously enshrined federal protections for abortion. As a result, the process by which judges are appointed to the federal bench is of critical importance when analyzing how policy will be influenced by the judiciary. In the American constitutional system, judges are nominated by the president to various appellate courts, as well as the Supreme Court itself, and are confirmed by a vote in the Senate. As mentioned previously, Democrats managed to keep hold of the Senate, meaning that Biden will be able to continue filling the ranks of the federal judiciary with progressively-minded judges. This implies that the policies which have been passed under the Biden administration will have a greater likelihood of being upheld when faced with legal challenges. This reality is clearly reflected when considering the outcome of recent Supreme Court rulings: every justice that voted to overrule Roe v. Wade, for example, was nominated by a Republican president (in this case, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump), while every justice that voted to uphold Roe was nominated by a Democratic president (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama). Because of the outcome in the Senate, the confirmation of federal judges will be an exception to the otherwise gridlocked environment.
Nevertheless, there are plausible scenarios where some policy will be able to successfully make its way through Washington between now and the next general election. Some legislation can be enacted unilaterally by the president through what is known as an executive order. For example, the Biden administration recently announced the cancellation of thousands of dollars worth of federal student loans in August without the approval of Congress. It is likely that Biden will continue issuing orders such as this whenever statutorily possible. In addition, the makeup of the new Republican majority may leave room for some compromise. In New York, for example, a group of moderate Republicans were able to flip traditionally Democratic seats by taking advantage of local discontent with Democrats. These types of Republicans will see themselves as being particularly vulnerable in 2024 and may be more amenable to making compromises with Democrats in an effort to stand out from the rest of the Republican caucus. Either way, as long as Republicans are in control of the leadership positions in the House, it will be procedurally impossible for such a compromise to make its way to the floor for a vote.
With the latest installment of American election drama in the books, we should prepare ourselves for a return to Obama-era sluggishness and a proliferation of headlines lamenting Washington as a place of petty disagreement rather than one of substantive policy achievement. With Donald Trump’s announcement that he is launching his third run for president, expect attention to quickly shift towards the civil war within the Republican party and to the speculation surrounding Joe Biden’s intention to seek reelection. Unfortunately, it seems as though this divided government will allow for horse race journalism to return to dominance after two years of refreshingly policy-centered discussions.