In Washington, Democrats had time on their hands with Republicans in control of the White House, the Senate, and, until the midterm elections, the House. They could fill their days by promoting a policy agenda. Instead, they chose to concentrate on impeaching President Trump and running him out of town.
Among the Democratic presidential candidates, the focus is different. Their desire to impose a left-wing agenda on America is all-consuming — that is, a sweeping agenda a Democratic president would enact as FDR had done with the New Deal. But the presidential candidates are living on a different planet from their allies in Washington.
The distinction here is a pretty simple one. Capitol Hill Democrats operate in the world of Washington where politics is everything and ambitious policymaking has faded to the point of near-extinction. The presidential aspirants inhabit a dream world.
This situation, with rough politics the rule, won’t last forever, but it’s not going away any time soon. Washington has indeed changed. The word “polarization” doesn’t quite capture how raw and hateful the division between Democrats and Republicans has become. Democrats think Republicans are racists and running dogs for capitalism. This used to be the view only of far-left Democrats. Now it’s the majority view.
Republicans are puzzled by this caricature. They see themselves as conservatives whose positions haven’t changed. What they don’t understand is how the country has changed. Just look at Colorado or New Hampshire or Virginia — states that were conservative and now aren’t.
In Washington, bipartisanship is a memory. Republicans who cite examples of cooperation are kidding themselves. Bipartisanship exists only on piffling issues.
The transformation of political Washington is a 21st-century phenomenon. It’s often forgotten that President Barack Obama campaigned against polarization and promised to stress bipartisanship. Nothing of the sort happened. He cold-shouldered Republicans. And they voted against Obamacare and his economic stimulus bill. He spurned compromise and used presidential orders to pursue his agenda.
With Trump, we have total polarization. Democrats aren’t entirely to blame for this, but their emotional embrace of “the resistance” is the biggest factor. They decided to reject cooperation with Trump even if it might be beneficial to their constituents. They could have legalized young immigrants known as “Dreamers” if they agreed to support Trump’s border wall and softened the blow to Democratic states from Trump’s tax reform. Democrats declined in both cases.
Washington is also barren land for big policy initiatives for what is, in effect, a bipartisan tactic. When Democrats can’t win in Congress, especially on social issues such as gay marriage, they turn to the federal courts. When Republicans can’t stop liberal breakthroughs, they do the same.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is said to have concluded that major policy issues are likely to be decided increasingly by federal judges. In fact, that has already happened. The result is a smaller role for Washington and especially for Congress.
It’s no secret in Washington that McConnell has accommodated by filling the federal courts with conservative judges, the younger the better. He’s put together large, often unanimous, Senate GOP majorities to confirm two Supreme Court justices and 43 federal appeals court judges.
Democrats have responded with their usual resistance. But they never caught up with McConnell, who had arranged for an ally, Don McGahn, to be chief White House counsel. They avoided interference by Justice Department lawyers and, along with Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, put together an impressive group of conservative nominees. Trump loved it since he got credit.
If Trump is reelected, we’re likely to see a replica of the Obama administration: two years of relative success on Capitol Hill followed by six years of reliance on executive orders. What Trump achieved was hardly historic because Congress, which deals with taxes every year and often modifies them, has kept taxes for itself.
What about Elizabeth Warren and the other candidates? Unless Democrats win a triple crown of president and Congress, their plans, sometimes socialist, are too far-left for Washington. A Republican-moderate Democrat alliance would emerge.
So would the top 1% of the wealthy. The rich are the Mike Tyson of the political equation. One should never forget what he said: “Everyone has a plan ‘til they get punched in the face.”
Fred Barnes is a Washington Examiner senior columnist.
