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 »
Trump Schedules Second Meeting With Putin
3 hours ago

"National Security Adviser John Bolton said Tuesday that President Trump will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Paris on Nov. 11, the 100th anniversary of the armistice ending World War I. ...Bolton was in Moscow to meet with Putin about Trump's decision to withdraw from a landmark nuclear weapons treaty, a move the Kremlin says 'will make the world more dangerous.'"

U.S. Stocks Extend Losses
8 hours ago

Stocks dropped sharply on Tuesday morning "as disappointing forecasts from industrial bellwethers Caterpillar and 3M piled on to concerns over Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic isolation, Italy’s finances and trade-war fears. All the three major Wall Street indexes were trading below their 200-day moving averages, a key technical indicator of long-term momentum and all 11 major S&P sectors were in the red, continuing what has been a punishing month for U.S. stocks. ...Growth is expected to slow further in the fourth quarter, as the effects of U.S tax cuts fade and the impact of tariffs and rising costs rise."

Sandra Day O'Connor Diagnosed With Dementia
8 hours ago
Mnuchin Meets with MBS
1 days ago
Saudis Admit Khashoggi Killed in Embassy
3 days ago

"Saudi Arabia said Saturday that Jamal Khashoggi, the dissident Saudi journalist who disappeared more than two weeks ago, had died after an argument and fistfight with unidentified men inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Eighteen men have been arrested and are being investigated in the case, Saudi state-run media reported without identifying any of them. State media also reported that Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, the deputy director of Saudi intelligence, and other high-ranking intelligence officials had been dismissed."


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.