🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the purpose of the U.S. Congress? In the second presidency of Donald Trump, it can be hard to tell. The authority to declare war, traditionally viewed as a crucial legislative power, has become a murky prerogative of the presidential office in the time since September 11; the president, in recent months, has claimed even more of that power for his administration, authorizing military actions on boats in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse seems to have mostly been stripped from the legislative branch as well; now, under the leadership of management and budget director, the OMB director, much of the ability to allocate government money has likewise shifted to the presidency, with the White House asserting the authority to cancel congressionally authorized expenditures and seeking to redirect the funds elsewhere. It’s as if they’re passing any laws, anyway; almost all bills must currently be packed into budget reconciliation bills, huge recurring must-spend comprehensive bills that can circumvent the senate obstruction. But when these fail to be approved – and increasingly, they do not – the federal government just shuts down. That is, big parts of the government shut down – and it’s not clear how many citizens are aware. Currently, the federal government has been shut down for the entire month; there are little indication of it resuming operations in the near future. But the presidency keeps on humming along.

And so the question of dominance of the House and Senate can seem rather irrelevant. Why should Americans care who has a majority in a body that has mostly rendered itself powerless?

In what way ‘screw Trump’ messaging could help the state of California’s Proposition 50 succeed

And yet Proposition 50, the Golden State’s redistricting referendum that could deliver five additional congressional positions to the Democrats if it is approved by voters in a upcoming vote next month, has seized the attention of liberals across the country. In part, it is a belated reaction to trends happening elsewhere: Republican-controlled states have long adopted dramatic biased redistricting while big Democratic-controlled such as the Golden State, the Empire State and Washington draw their maps via impartial independent commissions, an asymmetry that has resulted in narrowly split control of the House and a longstanding feeling, by Democrats, that their party is at a disadvantage. The California proposal is explicitly intended as a countermove to a mid-term redistricting that was recently approved in the Lone Star State, which implemented maps that will provide Republicans an five more seats in the state’s congressional delegation next year; similar redistricting moves are in progress in states such as the Show-Me State and Indiana. (The left in the Old Dominion are likewise emulating the state’s lead in seeking to alter districts.)

The state measure seems probable to be approved, as progressive electorate react with concern and anger to Trump’s authoritarian centralization of power and look for ways to restrain his most extreme tendencies. But Prop 50 is not free from controversy. Some opponents caution that the action could backfire, with Democratic-controlled states’ attempts to change districts triggering a revenge pattern in which red states do additional to draw their districts so as to foreclose any possibility of opposition party success. Different critics have questioned the proposal on more purely ideological democratic bases: a electoral area that is drawn in such a way that the outcome of the vote is never really in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be genuinely democratic: it implies, necessarily, that the power of opposing views is muted, and that the process of debate, discussion and convincing that is supposed to define a healthy political system will be confined only to party primaries, if it occurs at all.

It is valuable taking each of these objections on their merits. The first critique, that Prop 50 will provoke the right to alter their own maps in retaliation, does not hold up as a logical argument: it is illogical to claim that Republicans will be compelled to behave in antidemocratic ways by the left’s actions when they are already doing so in the absence of those steps. The Republican party, I would observe, has not needed any motivation of revenge to change boundaries that secure permanent positions for their party: they have been willing to do this for their own benefit, in the complete absence of Democratic reciprocation, for a long time.

The other objection, in my view, is more significant, expressing not just a tactical disagreement about how to confront the Republicans’ undemocratic shift, but a kind of sad wish for a distinct country than the one that the US has become. It is accurate that in a more ideal situation – in the reality that most the left, I think, yearn for and hope for – the proposition would be unappealing to our principles, and not required by our situation. It is not good to pack and crack disfavored population groups; it is harmful for elected officials to select their voters, rather than the other way around; it is negative that votes are made uncontested. That these measures have grown essential in order to slow the authoritarian advance of the president’s power and lessen the level of harm he is able to inflict is sad; it is a indication of how much we have fallen from a state more like a representative government. But they are required. It is only after the fight against Trumpism has been successfully concluded that we can lament what fighting it has transformed us into.

If the legislative branch does not in reality have lawmaking, war making or appropriations power, what is it, precisely, that Prop 50’s five new blue representatives will be dispatched to Washington to do? One aspect that Congress still holds is subpoena power, and the ability to investigate. Even in our time of stagnant government and congressional atrophy, it has utilized of that authority to significant impact. In the coming years, if Prop 50 passes and California’s new representatives are sworn in, they will find themselves a member of a body with the power to probe the president, to broadcast their investigations into his actions and to compel members of his close advisors to testify. It’s significant, and crucially, it’s not something that any conservative would do.

• The columnist is a news outlet columnist