By Bruce Ackerman
NEW HAVEN – It is easy to exaggerate Donald Trump’s defeat of Kamala Harris in the recent US presidential contest.
He won the popular vote by less than two percentage points – a similar margin of victory as the winners of the last three elections.
The last time a president won by anything like a “landslide” was in 2008, when Barack Obama triumphed over John McCain by seven percentage points and led the Democrats to large majorities in Congress. As a result, the 111th Congress was the most productive in decades.
But, in 2010, only two years after this sweeping victory, the Democrats lost a stunning 63 seats in the House of Representatives and six seats in the Senate, forcing Obama to rely on a slim Senate majority as he did battle with John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Obama was re-elected in 2012 by a narrow margin, but Republicans maintained House majorities throughout his second term.
These half-forgotten memories inform my skepticism about the enduring significance of Trump’s win over Harris. In contrast to Obama’s decisive victory in 2008, Trump cannot rely on the support of 59 Senators or 255 Representatives when he returns to the White House. Instead, Republicans will have razor-thin majorities in both the House and Senate.
To be sure, congressional Republicans will give Trump rip-roaring cheers of approval when their hero presents his State of the Union address in January.
But those who represent swing districts may be reluctant to support his efforts to enact the “Make America Great Again” platform.
If they vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA, also known as “Obamacare”) or increase tariffs, for example, their constituents will confront higher medical expenses and food prices.
Democrats will then make these economic hardships the centerpiece of the 2026 midterm election, jeopardizing the Republicans’ majority in one or both chambers.
This is hardly the first time that congressional incumbents have faced such a predicament.
There is, accordingly, a time-tested tactic for minimizing the risk of midterm defeat: “strategic delay.”
After applauding Trump’s State of the Union, Republicans from swing districts will urge the House and Senate leadership to defer high-visibility votes on his MAGA initiatives until after the 2026 elections.
They will conduct endless committee hearings and negotiations to convince Trump that he will ultimately win glorious victories during his last two years in office.
Meanwhile, the Republican leadership will try to satisfy his demands by enacting more modest legislation that can enhance their fellow party members’ prospects for re-election.
After the midterms, however, House and Senate Republicans will recognize that their electoral prospects will be profoundly shaped by the outcome of the presidential contest in 2028 – and that Trump will almost surely choose his successor.
That will provide a powerful incentive to legislate his MAGA proposals starting in 2027.
Sitting presidents have usually accepted these delaying tactics because their big policy initiatives are geared to the long term – all that matters is enacting them before they leave office.
But Trump’s presidential performance will likely take a very different course. Rather than biding his time, he will denounce strategic Republicans as “traitors” when they do not immediately execute his agenda.
This is precisely the kind of childish pouting that has come to mark Trump’s approach to governance.
It may well have disastrous consequences for Republicans at the midterm polls, regardless of how individual politicians respond to Trump’s heated condemnations.
One of two scenarios could play out in the coming years. Republicans, sufficiently cowed by Trump, could ram MAGA bills through Congress ahead of the 2026 elections – even though their Democratic opponents would weaponize this legislative record against them during the campaign.
On the other hand, enough Republicans may dig in their heels, leaving the congressional leadership no choice but to engage in strategic delay, despite Trump’s vicious personal attacks.
But, paradoxically, even this second scenario will grievously undermine Republican re-election prospects in 2026.
Trump’s outraged personal assaults on individual incumbents will not only bewilder Republican-leaning voters.
They will make them more responsive to Democratic warnings that, if the Republicans retain their congressional majorities, they will enact sweeping measures that devastate the lives of countless Americans.
Of course, I do not intend to minimize the significance of Trump’s narrow victory, which will undoubtedly have far-reaching long-term implications.
Rather, my point is that the American constitutional system of checks and balances does not permit a single presidential victory to upend the entire legal system.
Republicans will have to win the 2026 elections before they have a serious chance of passing MAGA policies.
Even if there is a flurry of legislative activity during Trump’s final years in office, the Democrats will be in a strong position to urge the repeal of these statutes in the 2028 election campaign.
Only if somebody like J.D. Vance wins the next presidential race will the radical right be able to propel the country in a decisively new direction – in the manner of the Civil Rights movement under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, or the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s.
Recall that Ronald Reagan’s critique of big government only gathered steam after he was re-elected by 18 percentage points in 1984.
Even more remarkable was Johnson’s nearly 23-point victory over Barry Goldwater in 1964.
The Democrats also gained overwhelming majorities in Congress that year, enabling Johnson, who had won approval for the Civil Rights Act earlier that year, to enact the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
If the Trumpish candidate of 2028 wins in a similar landslide, then Democrats will have to recognize that they have indeed been repudiated and begin the hard work of rebuilding their political platform to regain support.
But in case the 2028 election turns out to be another squeaker, the Democrats should not give up on their struggle for social justice – even if they lose.
Instead, they should continue to challenge the MAGA movement as its disastrous consequences for American society become ever clearer.
Bruce Ackerman, Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, is the author, most recently, of The Postmodern Predicament: Existential Challenges of the 21st Century (Yale University Press, 2024).
(Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2024)
