VIEWING THE NEW CONGRESS This commentary will be the last for this semester—and at least until the new Congress convenes. Thus, I am going to take this opportunity to spell out some of the keys one can look for in the months ahead. First, one can look at the irony in the last election. The Republicans won what even former vice president Al Gore an overwhelming victory. But they only picked up a couple of seats in each house of the Congress, and they lost a couple of governorships. How is this an overwhelming win? The victory should be considered a major one for two reasons. First, the Republicans won the expectations game; they had portrayed the election as one in which the Democrats should win and then beat those expectations. Whether the expectations were legitimate or not is beside the point. The President and his operatives set the tone, the press played the tune, and the public listened to the music. Second, and more important, the Republicans retained control of the House of Representatives and regained control of the Senate. The vote totals do not changes much, but majority status carries important consequences. Each committee will be chaired by a Republican; the Republicans will have majorities on committees and can thus, if they maintain party unity, bring legislation from committee to the floor. That change is crucial in the legislative process. So, what can one expect to see? I will not go into all of the policy implications. I will say, however, that judicial nominations, held up by the Democratically controlled Judiciary Committee in the last Congress will now work their way to the floor. We have seen this already, in the lame duck session of the 107th Congress, as Senate Democrats, still in nominal control of the committee, allowed two controversial nominations to go forward, in recognition of the fact that those battles were lost. Similarly, some legislation of importance to the President will pass, whereas it might have been held up before. Again in the lame duck session passage of the Homeland Security Bill presages more to come. But those victories are not the end of this story. Two other aspects of legislative politics in the years ahead also deserve watching. First, observe the relationship between Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and the White House. Lott is more conservative than the President’s political operatives want this White House to appear. The result will either be a clash, which I see as unlikely, or the Republican majority in the Congress taking a decided back seat to their co-partisans at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Second, with united government comes not only the ability to govern, but the responsibility for governing. While White House and the Congress could throw blame back and forth between themselves when the public disliked outcomes in a time of divided government, under unified Republican control, the public will praise the GOP if things go well and blame the party if they do not. The Republicans and the President look very strong, in November 2002, as one looks toward November 2004. But it is far too early for the Democrats to write off the next election. Much can happen in the next fourteen months—before the time at which the 2004 election begins in earnest. As the first President Bush can attest, what seems likely does not always come to pass. One final point. In these commentaries I have often written about the lack of competition in congressional elections. There was, in fact, less competition in 2002 than in most previous elections. Here is an exercise to perform to show how partisan gerrymandering has given way to incumbent protection gerrymandering. Compare the election results for the House of Representatives for 2002 with those for 1992, the election after the last redistricting. Do not ignore the fact that the contexts of the two elections were different, one was a presidential election and one an off-year election. But look at these indices: number of seats in which one or the other of the major parties did not field a candidate; number of incumbents defeated; number of incumbents polling more than 70% of the vote; number of incumbents polling less than 55% of the vote. In every case, we have moved significantly toward less competition. Now add two more: number of open seats that switched parties and levels of competition in open seats. What seems clear to me is that the partisan split in the House, the very close division in which control of the chamber will be determined by which party carries the small number of truly competitive seats, will remain for another decade. Our electoral system does not really give us much of a chance to express our views on how well we are represented—and in that, in my view, remains in need of serious reform. I hope you have enjoyed these commentaries and are enjoying the text. I have benefited from the comments of those of you who have written to me and look forward to continuing to hear from you in the future.