🔗 Share this article

What, precisely, is the purpose of Congress? In the second presidency of Donald Trump, it is difficult to tell. The power to declare war, long considered a vital legislative power, has turned into a unclear prerogative of the executive branch in the time since September 11; the president, in recent months, has asserted even more of that control for his administration, authorizing strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

The power of the purse appears to be mostly been stripped from the legislative branch too; now, under the office of management and budget director, Russell Vought, much of the power to allocate government money has likewise defaulted to the presidency, with the administration claiming the authority to cancel legislatively approved spending and seeking to move the funds elsewhere. It’s not like they’re enacting any laws, anyway; virtually all bills must currently be packed into budget reconciliation bills, massive perennial must-spend comprehensive bills that can circumvent the senate obstruction. But when these fail to be approved – and more and more, they do not – the government simply ceases operations. At least, large sections of the government shut down – and it’s uncertain how many citizens are aware. At present, the government has been shut down for the entire month; there are no signs of it resuming operations in the near future. But the presidency keeps on humming along.

And so the issue of control of Congress can seem somewhat irrelevant. Why should U.S. citizens care who holds a controlling share in a institution that has largely rendered itself powerless?

How ‘screw Trump’ messaging may assist the state of California’s Prop 50 prevail

And yet Prop 50, the Golden State’s ballot measure on district boundaries that could deliver five more congressional positions to the Democrats if it is approved by voters in a upcoming vote in the coming weeks, has captured the attention of progressives nationwide. Partly, it is a belated response to developments happening elsewhere: GOP-led states have long embraced extreme partisan gerrymandering while large Democratic-controlled such as California, New York and the Evergreen State create their maps via impartial redistricting panels, an imbalance that has led to closely divided House control and a longstanding feeling, by the left, that their party is at a disadvantage. The state proposal is explicitly intended as a response to a mid-term redrawing of maps that recently passed in Texas, which implemented maps that will give the GOP an five more seats in the state’s House representation next year; comparable redistricting moves are under way in states such as the Show-Me State and the Hoosier State. (Democrats in Virginia are likewise emulating California’s example in attempting to redistrict.)

The state initiative seems probable to be approved, as Democratic and liberal voters react with fear and anger to Trump’s autocratic consolidation of authority and look for ways to check his most extreme tendencies. But the proposition is not without debate. Some opponents warn that the action could have unintended consequences, with Democratic-controlled states’ attempts to change districts setting off a revenge pattern in which Republican-controlled states do additional to draw their maps so as to eliminate any chance of opposition party success. Different critics have questioned the proposal on more purely ideological democratic bases: a district that is drawn in such a manner that the outcome of the election is not in question, they argue, is one that cannot be said to be truly democratic: it means, necessarily, that the influence of opposing voices is muted, and that the process of deliberation, argument and convincing that is meant to define a functioning political system will be limited only to primary elections, if it happens at all.

It is valuable taking each of these criticisms on their merits. The initial critique, that the measure will spur the right to alter their respective districts in response, fails as a logical point: it does not make sense to claim that Republicans will be compelled to behave in undemocratic ways by the left’s actions when they are already doing so in the absence of those steps. The Republican party, it can be noted, has not needed any incentive of retaliation to redraw boundaries that guarantee permanent positions for their party: they have been willing to do this for its own sake, in the complete absence of Democratic reciprocation, for a long time.

The second objection, in my view, is more substantive, expressing not just a tactical difference about how to address the Republicans’ anti-democracy shift, but a kind of sad wish for a distinct nation than the one that the United States has become. It is accurate that in a more ideal world – in the reality that the majority of the left, I think, desire and aspire to – Prop 50 would be unappealing to our principles, and not mandated by our circumstances. It is not good to pack and crack disfavored demographics; it is harmful for politicians to select their voters, rather than the reverse; it is not good that votes are rendered uncontested. That these actions have grown necessary in order to impede the autocratic advance of Trump’s power and reduce the amount of suffering he is capable to inflict is sad; it is a indication of how far we have declined from a state more like a democracy. But they are necessary. Only once the battle against Trumpism has been won that we can mourn what opposing it has transformed us into.

If Congress does not in practice have legislative, military or budgetary authority, what is it, precisely, that Prop 50’s five new blue house members will be sent to Washington to do? One aspect that the House and Senate still holds is subpoena power, and the power to examine. Even in our era of sclerotic government and legislative decline, it has utilized of that power to significant impact. In the coming years, if the measure passes and California’s new representatives are take office, they will find themselves a part of a body with the authority to investigate Trump, to broadcast their investigations into his actions and to compel associates of his inner circle to testify. It’s not nothing, and more importantly, it’s not something that any conservative would do.

• The columnist is a news outlet writer