In two phone chats after Democrats won the House in the midterm election, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and likely House speaker Nancy Pelosi broached the subject of bipartisanship—or as McConnell put it, “ways we might be able to find a way forward.”
There aren’t many. Vengeful House Democrats would rather make life miserable for President Trump by investigating his entire administration. They figure the most effective way to go after the Trump team is to abuse them with subpoenas followed by hostile House hearings.
Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the incoming chair of the House Oversight Committee, has said he wants to know how Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner got a security clearance. And he’s eager to look into the case of the two men who separately told Senate Judiciary Committee staffers they’d sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who alleged Brett Kavanaugh had been her attacker.
Then there’s Adam Schiff of California, the incoming Intelligence Committee chair. He’s ready to grill the Trump crowd to discover if they colluded with Russia in the 2016 campaign, though special counsel Robert Mueller, other committees, and the media have covered that ground extensively.
And who knows what Maxine Waters of California, who will run the Financial Services Committee, might have in store for GOP witnesses. House committee chairs have wide latitude—wider than their Senate counterparts. And they tend to exploit the opportunity it gives them.
To get along at all, there’s a hitch that McConnell and Pelosi will have to contend with. It could prevent bipartisan compromises from even being considered. Trump has threatened to boycott any cooperation with Democrats if he is investigated by House Democrats. If Democrats insist, the next two years could be a dead time for new policies and projects. President Obama’s dull second two years would seem like a time of excitement in comparison.
Trump may not be serious about stiffing Democrats. He’s fickle about threats: He makes them and, when convenient, forgets them. But if he won’t back down—Democrats won’t, for sure—Washington would experience 24 months of super-gridlock while governing remains on autopilot.
Gridlock has its virtues. It prevents ambitious Republicans and Democrats from making big policy mistakes. I’m referring to the two issues both parties agree on: infrastructure and reducing drug prices.
Spending on infrastructure—roads, bridges, government buildings, mass transit, stadiums—creates favorable press clippings. That’s one reason politicians like infrastructure so much. And they’re willing to go ahead with a dubious project even if it fails to meet two important tests.
Is it needed? That’s the first test, and few projects are able to pass it. Think of the fascination with streetcars in recent years. They look great, have a nostalgic appeal, the media love them, and the federal government usually pays most of the tab (at least before Elaine Chao became Transportation secretary).
Streetcars now move slowly along many city streets. Mayors get political credit. But there’s a problem. Ridership is invariably lower than promised. They don’t go where people want to go. They’re a costly urban ornament.
The interstate highway system is one of the greatest examples of successful infrastructure. For the most part it was needed. It made driving across the country safe, speedy, and sometimes congestion-free. But not all the interstates were needed, especially those routed through downtowns. They often caused more congestion than they curbed, and scarred city landscapes.
The second test is cost. Is there money to pay for a national infrastructure effort? At the moment, the answer is no. Many politicians would like to rely on borrowing. That merely puts off the day of financial reckoning.
The good news is that an infrastructure bill passed by Congress must be paid for. And that makes it less likely to pass. Tolls on highways and bridges could pay for some of it, but only a small fraction.
The second possible area of cooperation—reducing the price of prescription drugs—passes the need test easily. If the market doesn’t deliver the drugs people need at a price they can afford, government will step in—but the less it does, the better. Price controls and regulation could destroy the investment and medical innovation that leads to miracle drugs and longer lives.
When political parties hate each other as they do today, it can feel good when they agree. But agreement doesn’t mean good legislation. Take the Republican tax bill of 2017. If Democrats had joined, it wouldn’t have improved the legislation. Instead, economic incentives would have been lower, tax rates higher, and growth not nearly as strong.
So the odds of good bipartisan legislation in the upcoming Congress are very low. The less it does the next two years, the better.
