AGAINST THE GRAIN

How Al Franken Paved the Way for Donald Trump

If Obama didn’t have a Senate supermajority for his ambitious agenda when he was first elected, Washington would look a lot different than it does today.

Joe Biden administers the Senate oath to Al Franken in 2015.
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
Josh Kraushaar
Add to Briefcase
Josh Kraushaar
March 8, 2016, noon

Look­ing for a cul­prit to blame for all the po­lar­iz­a­tion, grid­lock, and bad feel­ings in Wash­ing­ton? Point to Sen. Al Franken. No, that’s not a joke.

It’s noth­ing per­son­al against Franken. Ima­gine for a mo­ment if Franken had lost the Min­nesota Sen­ate race in 2008 by sev­er­al hun­dred votes in­stead of win­ning by a razor-thin mar­gin that promp­ted months of re­counts. Ima­gine that Sen­ate Demo­crats had only 59 votes in Decem­ber 2009 and needed to cor­ral at least one Re­pub­lic­an vote to pass Obama­care. But Pres­id­ent Obama didn’t face any real res­ist­ance in Con­gress to start his pres­id­ency, and that turned out to be a polit­ic­al curse be­cause he nev­er needed to work with the op­pos­i­tion bey­ond win­dow-dress­ing. That set the stage for the po­lar­iz­a­tion to come.

Without a Demo­crat­ic su­per­ma­jor­ity, Obama would have been forced to ne­go­ti­ate with Re­pub­lic­ans (or, at least, former Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine) and settle for the in­cre­ment­al health care le­gis­la­tion that his then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel re­com­men­ded. The GOP would still have been op­posed to any Demo­crat­ic health care re­forms, but the an­ti­pathy would have been muted be­cause a few Re­pub­lic­ans would have sup­por­ted the le­gis­la­tion. In­stead of pro­vok­ing a pitched par­tis­an show­down that cul­min­ated with then-House Minor­ity Lead­er John Boehner ex­claim­ing that the Con­gress had “shat­ter[ed] the bonds of trust” with the Amer­ic­an people, Obama could have tempered the wrath of the Re­pub­lic­an op­pos­i­tion.

“In a demo­cracy, you can only ig­nore the will of the people for so long and get away with it,” Boehner pres­ci­ently ar­gued be­fore the House’s fate­ful Obama­care vote. “If we defy the will of our fel­low cit­izens and pass this bill, we are go­ing to be held to ac­count by those who have placed us in their trust.”

Ima­gine, for a mo­ment, the state of the 2010 midterms without Obama­care in the equa­tion. Re­pub­lic­ans would have run against the stag­nant state of the eco­nomy with some suc­cess. But without the gal­van­iz­ing op­pos­i­tion to Obama’s health care law—Re­pub­lic­ans net­ted a whop­ping 63 House seats that year—Demo­crats would likely have nar­rowly kept con­trol of Con­gress, and con­tin­ued to press for­ward with Obama’s agenda. There would be tea-party-aligned Re­pub­lic­ans elec­ted, but ab­sent the wave, not enough to form the con­cer­ted op­pos­i­tion that emerged. Vet­er­an Blue Dog Demo­crats like Reps. Ike Skelton, Gene Taylor, and Chet Ed­wards (among oth­ers) would likely have been reelec­ted, and be­come bridge-build­ers between parties.

The no­tion of mod­er­ate prag­mat­ism pre­vail­ing might sound like fantasy to read­ers who have watched the polit­ic­al cage-fight­ing over the last sev­en years. But even in our po­lar­ized times, polit­ics is still primar­ily about self-in­terest.

Obama ac­ted against his polit­ic­al self-in­terest in push­ing Obama­care through Con­gress, but giv­en the di­vided gov­ern­ment that en­sued, it then made some sense for him to play to his base in his reelec­tion cam­paign and stick to his lib­er­al prin­ciples after win­ning. At the same time, Re­pub­lic­ans would have been com­mit­ting polit­ic­al mal­prac­tice if they ig­nored the tea-party tsunami that en­vel­oped the coun­try in 2010. With in­tensi­fy­ing en­ergy on the Right, the biggest polit­ic­al threat to mem­bers emerged from with­in their own party, and they ad­ap­ted ac­cord­ingly.

The ques­tion then be­comes: Who star­ted the fire? Obama cer­tainly de­serves some of the blame, and he even ad­mit­ted re­cently that one of his biggest re­grets as pres­id­ent was the po­lar­iz­a­tion that he’s leav­ing be­hind. The prob­lem is that he hasn’t con­nec­ted his early ac­tions with what tran­spired.

The no­tion that Obama was fated to face an in­transigent Re­pub­lic­an op­pos­i­tion has al­ways been off-base. He won a his­tor­ic­ally-high 53 per­cent of the vote in 2008, bring­ing Demo­crats con­gres­sion­al seats that they hadn’t won in dec­ades, in­clud­ing ones in rur­al Alabama and Louisi­ana. He even won 40 per­cent of non-col­lege-edu­cated whites—a re­mark­able tally giv­en how des­pised he is among this con­stitu­ency today. Demo­crats had all the polit­ic­al tools they needed to press Obama’s wide­spread per­son­al pop­ular­ity in­to an agenda that could pick off enough mod­er­ate Re­pub­lic­ans to suc­ceed. (Just con­sider an al­tern­ate real­ity in which le­gis­la­tion ad­dress­ing in­come in­equal­ity, job-skills train­ing, and the costs and qual­ity of col­lege edu­ca­tion were the center­pieces of an Obama agenda after the re­ces­sion.)

But it’s also un­der­stand­able that Obama, eager to be seen as a his­tor­ic­ally-con­sequen­tial pres­id­ent, would want to spend all of his polit­ic­al cap­it­al early on the Demo­crat­ic dream of ex­pand­ing pub­lic ac­cess to health care—polit­ic­al back­lash be damned.

That’s where Al Franken comes in. If it wer­en’t for 312 voters in Min­nesota, Obama’s am­bi­tions would at least have been cur­tailed by le­gis­lat­ive real­it­ies, and the tra­ject­ory of his pres­id­ency would have looked much dif­fer­ent. Franken, the first in­sult com­ic to get elec­ted to the Sen­ate, cir­cuit­ously paved the way for the rise of a much dif­fer­ent type of en­ter­tain­er—Don­ald J. Trump.

What We're Following See More »
JUST AS SENATE VOTES ITS DISAPPROVAL
Trump Backtracks on Putin's "Incredible Offer"
2 days ago
THE LATEST
ARMS CONTROL, SYRIA WERE DISCUSSED
Russians Refer to "Verbal Agreements" with Trump
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"Two days after President Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, Russian officials offered a string of assertions about what the two leaders had achieved. 'Important verbal agreements' were reached at the Helsinki meeting, Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, told reporters in Moscow Wednesday, including preservation of the New Start and INF agreements," and cooperation in Syria.

Source:
WAS "GRUDGINGLY" CONVINCED
Trump Was Shown Proof of Russian Interference Before Inauguration
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election. The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation. Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed."

TAKE THAT, HATERS
Trump: High IQ People Loved the Putin Meeting
3 days ago
THE LATEST
"POLICY DIFFERENCES DON'T MATTER"
Comey Says to Vote Democratic This Fall
3 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login