🔗 Share this article

What, exactly, is the purpose of the U.S. Congress? During another presidency of Donald Trump, it is difficult to determine. The power to initiate armed conflict, traditionally viewed as a crucial legislative power, has turned into a murky right of the executive branch in the time since September 11; the president, in the past few months, has claimed even more of that control for his administration, authorizing strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

The authority over spending appears to be largely been stripped from Congress as well; now, under the office of management and budget director, the OMB director, much of the power to appropriate federal funds has likewise shifted to the executive, with the administration claiming the authority to abort legislatively approved expenditures and seeking to redirect the funds elsewhere. It’s not like they’re passing any legislation, anyway; virtually all bills must currently be packed into budget reconciliation bills, massive perennial must-spend omnibus legislation that can circumvent the senate obstruction. But when those fail to be approved – and more and more, they do not – the federal government simply ceases operations. At least, big parts of the administration shut down – and it’s uncertain how many people are aware. At present, the federal government has been closed all month; there are little indication of it resuming operations anytime soon. But the executive branch continues operating smoothly.

And so the issue of dominance of Congress can seem rather moot. Why should Americans be concerned who has a majority in a institution that has largely abolished itself?

How ‘oppose the president’ messaging could help California’s Proposition 50 succeed

And yet Prop 50, California’s redistricting referendum that could deliver five more congressional positions to the Democratic Party if it is embraced by the electorate in a special election in the coming weeks, has seized the political imagination of liberals nationwide. In part, it is a belated reaction to developments happening elsewhere: Republican-controlled states have for a long time adopted extreme biased redistricting while big blue states such as California, New York and the Evergreen State draw their district lines via impartial independent commissions, an imbalance that has resulted in closely divided control of the House and a long-term feeling, by the left, that their political group is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The state proposal is clearly designed as a countermove to a mid-decade redistricting that was recently approved in the Lone Star State, which implemented maps that will provide Republicans an additional five seats in the state House representation next year; similar redistricting moves are under way in states such as the Show-Me State and the Hoosier State. (The left in Virginia are also following California’s lead in seeking to alter districts.)

The California initiative seems probable to pass, as progressive voters react with concern and frustration to the president’s autocratic consolidation of power and seek methods to check his worst tendencies. But the proposition is not without controversy. Some critics caution that the move could have unintended consequences, with blue states’ attempts to redistrict setting off a retaliatory cycle in which Republican-controlled states do even more to design their maps so as to eliminate any chance of opposition party success. Different critics have questioned the proposal on more purely ideological democratic grounds: a district that is drawn in such a manner that the result of the election is never really in doubt, they say, is one that cannot be said to be truly representative: it means, inevitably, that the influence of dissenting voices is suppressed, and that the process of debate, discussion and persuasion that is meant to characterize a functioning democratic process will be confined only to primary elections, if it happens at all.

It is valuable considering each of these criticisms on their merits. The first argument, that the measure will spur conservatives to alter their respective districts in retaliation, does not hold up as a logical point: it is illogical to say that the GOP will be made to act in antidemocratic ways by Democrats’ actions when they are already engaging in such behavior in the absence of those actions. The GOP, I would observe, has required no any incentive of revenge to change maps that guarantee long-term positions for their party: they have been willing to do this for its own sake, in the total absence of Democratic reciprocation, for years.

The other objection, in my view, is more significant, reflecting not just a tactical disagreement about how to confront the Republicans’ undemocratic shift, but a sort of sad desire for a distinct nation than the one that the US has become. It is accurate that in a more ideal situation – in the world that most Democrats, I think, desire and aspire to – the proposition would be distasteful to our principles, and not required by our circumstances. It is undesirable to pack and crack disfavored population groups; it is harmful for politicians to select their voters, rather than the other way around; it is not good that elections are made uncontested. That these actions have become essential in order to impede the authoritarian advance of Trump’s control and reduce the level of suffering he is capable to inflict is sad; it is a sign of how far we have declined from a state more like a democracy. But they are required. Only after the battle against the current administration’s ideology has been won that we can mourn what opposing it has made us.

If Congress fails to in reality have lawmaking, war making or appropriations authority, what is it, exactly, that the proposition’s additional five blue house members will be sent to Washington to do? One thing that Congress continues to retains is the authority to compel testimony, and the ability to investigate. Even in our time of stagnant government and legislative decline, it has utilized of that authority to great effect. In 2027, if Prop 50 passes and the state’s additional Democrats are take office, they will find themselves a member of a institution with the authority to investigate the president, to broadcast their investigations into his actions and to compel associates of his inner circle to give evidence. It’s not nothing, and crucially, it’s not anything that any conservative would do.

• The columnist is a Guardian US writer