It’s not easy to recognize when our political system is transitioning from one era to another, but there are many signs that we are in the middle of that process.
This past week, Senator Mitch McConnell announced he will step down as Republican leader at the end of this Congress and retire from the Senate when his term ends. His nemesis, Democratic leader Harry Reid, retired from the Senate in 2017. In the House of Representatives, all of the “Young Guns” — Reps. McCarthy, Boehner, and Cantor, as well as Rep. McHenry — have left the Capitol, or are about to do so. Their longtime political opponents, Reps. Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn, have recently stepped down from their leadership posts, although several are still influential in the House.
It would be one thing if these elected officials were succeeded by their ideological and temperamental heirs, but that’s not what is happening. The party of Reagan has largely been supplanted by the party of Trump. And the party of Clinton is in the hands of Biden, who appears to be a transitional figure, at least on economic issues.
Our political infrastructure is in transition as well. The House of Representatives has been characterized by top-down control by the Speaker since at least the mid-90s. But House Republicans appear to be in an uneasy co-governance arrangement between two political factions, with the rising pro-Trump faction able to exact significant procedural political concessions when it comes to agenda-setting power, illustrated by the placement of allies on the Rules Committee and the defenestration of Speaker McCarthy. This internal factional logjam has largely derailed the 118th Congress and is setting the stage for what is to come.
The Senate is in transition as well. The upper chamber historically has been a vetocracy that elevates minority control over the majority’s agenda-setting power. The internal political challenges to control by Sen. McConnell, who has expertly wielded the power of the minority, is notable in that the veto can best be asserted on major bills when 41 members stand together. McConnell has worked hard to paper over the divisions among Republicans in the Senate. However, when he has tried to assert his will on important issues, such as on Ukraine, it has become clear that he no longer holds the same sway he once did.
It’s notable that some of the more institutional-minded members of both chambers appear to be retiring and replaced by ideologues who are less capable of compromise on those issues that have not been asymmetrically polarized. We also are seeing a significant rise in public support for non-democratic forms of government.
What does all this mean? To start, the House in particular is groping towards another institutional arrangement. This has happened many times in the past. This transition has been slowed down, but not stopped, by the top-down power asserted by the party leader to keep their team together and divide their opponents. The use of suspension to circumvent the Rules Committee to pass major legislation, which is tantamount to an implicit bargain between factional wings of the parties, is a notable change in the typical process, albeit one vigorously contested. We also are seeing the passage of only a few major bills, notably appropriations and the NDAA, as catch-all measures, which further points to the consolidation of the remaining agenda-setting legislative power at the pinnacle of the parties. This comes at a cost, which is tremendous instability for whomever wears the crown.
In the Senate, we are seeing the slow shaving away of the filibuster — the major instrument of minority veto power over the majority’s agenda to counter the overrepresentation of the small states that are largely politically aligned with one party. We remember how Senator McConnell prevented the Senate from organizing for weeks in the aftermath of the Trump insurrection until he obtained a pledge from Sens. Manchin and Sinema to oppose efforts to soften or undo the filibuster. In the next Congress, Sen. Manchin will have retired and it is unclear whether Sen. Sinema will return. As a result, should the Democrats keep or gain a future majority, we may see the Senate become a more representative institution.
In the background are significant cases in the Supreme Court, which may soon overturn long-standing institutional arrangements on how agencies promulgate regulations and whether the president is above the law. And there’s the question of who will occupy the office of the presidency in 2025 and whether that person will follow the law, promote democracy, and adhere to the principles around the peaceful transition of power.
The American experiment has gone through rough patches before. In some ways, much of our history could be characterized as a rough patch, especially by those who had their rights trampled. The difficulties and challenges have often prompted institutional innovations and political realignment and we will see whether our institutions and our policymakers are willing and able to innovate yet again in this new environment.
