60 Senate Seats: How the Democrats Would Govern if They Could | Opinion

Vice President Kamala Harris is taking some heat for being vague on policy. That suggests that people are forgetting, as they often do at this point in campaigns, to pay little heed to the promises of politicians.
This point in campaigns is about maximizing support, not holding policy discussions. The wonks tend to hate and mock this, and it indeed debases democracy, but it’s also a fact of life. There are exceptions, but generally, as every study shows, policy is a lesser factor, especially among swing voters, than psychology, intuition, and emotion.
But journalists must journalize, and pundits tend to complicate. Even sober-minded outlets are getting in line to demand from Harris a more robust platform. “But how would she govern?” asked The Economist on its cover last week. Bloomberg’s newsletter peevishly complained that the Democrats are “Big on love, short on details” and yearned for a policy plan for “better Bidenomics,” with transparency on taxation, and such.
They’ll probably be waiting for some time—at least until Nov. 6. Until then, everything said will be for the purposes of getting the base off their couches (a step to the left) and seducing swing voters (a skip to the right).
If America had high levels of participation in elections, this calculation would shift somewhat, and the middle ground would be decisive—but as 40 percent of those eligible to vote don’t (it was slightly better in 2020), getting out the base becomes equally as important as persuading the swing vote. This assures flipflops and prevarications.
This is by no means to say that the issues don’t matter. The election is hugely important, both on policy and the personalities (meaning, basically, ethics). But there’s no mystery about what both Harris and former President Donald Trump would want to do on major issues. Sadly for Harris, and luckily in the case of Trump, much of that is unattainable because of the gridlock built into the American system.
That said, it is worth focusing on what the Democrats would probably do if they could. I make this claim because I assess that most citizens would be rather pleased to see it, however they actually vote. Here’s what would happen:
Medicare for All: Extending health care to all has been a progressive rallying cry for years, and no wonder: Every economically advanced democracy has this, and it is funded with taxation—and since there is already a system in place for seniors, called Medicare, it would be basically a question of lowering the age of eligibility. There would be challenges, including the exorbitant costs of health care in the United States—brought to you by hyper-litigation, an excess of capitalism in the system, and the stranglehold of the insurance industry. And a full transition from a private to a public system would be an enormous logistical and financial shift, and the insurance companies would lobby like mad. But there are ways to engineer a hybrid system where the private insurance is an add-on for those who truly want it or can afford it, yet no one is in the disastrous situation of not having access to health care (as millions in America currently are).
A Federal Ban on Abortion Bans: The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, gave states the power to ban abortions, leading to a patchwork of near or total abortion bans in more than a dozen states. This could be undone with a federal law that nullifies state abortion bans. It could face a significant backlash from conservative states and might eventually land back in front of the Supreme Court—but the unpopularity of this might give the Republicans second thought; and if it doesn’t, the Democrats will reap the electoral benefits.
Gun Control: If they could, Democrats would pass the most comprehensive gun reform in decades. This would include banning assault rifles, mandating universal background checks, and introducing severe penalties for carrying unlicensed guns. The gun lobby remains influential, and gun rights are deeply embedded in U.S. culture, particularly in Republican-leaning states; moreover, some moderate Democrats from rural areas might resist going too far, fearing backlash from their constituents. So, we probably wouldn’t get what’s really needed, which is the near-total ban that exists in countries like Britain (where the gun death rate is consequently tens of times lower). Still, what’s doable would still see immediate reductions in mass shootings and gun violence.
Supreme Court reform: Whereas the absurdities of the Electoral College realistically cannot be fixed due to constitutional hurdles, there is nothing preventing Democrats, if they enjoyed true power, from pleasing their base and doing logic a good turn by fixing the Supreme Court. The doable reforms, recently proposed by Biden, include expanding the number of justices, instituting term limits for judges, and establishing more stringent ethical standards. The latter especially would increase transparency and accountability, restoring public trust in the Court.
You can also pretty much assume they would pass massive infrastructure bills (nothing partisan about that: the interstate project came to you from the Republican Eisenhower Administration). Also, free school lunches and pre-school. The Republicans will howl that this is not affordable, but there is scant evidence that GOP rule is better for balancing the budget (any more than it is for family values).
None of this would necessarily happen just because Harris wins, no matter what she says on the campaign stage. That’s because of the Senate filibuster rule, which, in effect, requires a supermajority of 60 out of 100 Senators to pass any legislation serious enough to cause determined opposition. For such massive reforms, one of two things are needed.
The first is control of the House of Representatives plus 60 Senate seats. This is very rare (though it was briefly the case in former President Barack Obama’s early years). And although right now it seems fantastical, it really could happen if voters in safely blue states, which are about half the states, genuinely decided to vote by party for the Senate.
The second is if the Dems became angry enough and confident enough to eliminate the filibuster for specific legislation, or even in general. That so-called “nuclear option” can be deployed with a simple majority vote, and has already been used twice: In 2013, Democrats under then-Majority Leader Harry Reid used it to streamline most executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, except for the Supreme Court—and in 2017, Republicans under former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell extended it to include Supreme Court nominations. It all was seen as quite unsporting—but sporting is so very 20th century.
As for Harris, I’m less looking for position papers than listening to the music. Her mood seems aggressive, conceding nothing to the MAGA movement and portraying Trump as a criminal. She’s playing up her prosecutorial past and seems to revel in being underestimated no longer. So, who knows – perhaps a Harris administration would finally move the needle on obviously-needed changes—on cases of bad American exceptionalism like the gun madness.
It’s all depressingly unlikely—but if it did happen it would seem with hindsight plausible, perhaps inevitable. The Democrats will have done it for the same reason that any political force does things: Because they want to and because they can. That’s why the Republicans brought you abortion bans, prevented gun control, and installed an authoritarianism-friendly Supreme Court. The main difference is that the Dems’ changes would be popular.
If a Harris administration manages to also shut down the insanity at the Mexican border, she might be reelected in a landslide (sadly, a landslide is what she’d need anyway merely to win office, due to the pro-conservative distortions of the Electoral College).
Either way, I advise The Economist, Bloomberg and also the dear reader not to worry too much about policy discussions now. Pay heed instead to U2’s timeless “Desire,” a wonder of harsh wisdom that heaps its most joyous scorn on “a promise in the year of election.”
Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former Chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, the author of two books—and a voter in the swing state of Pennsylvania. Follow him at danperry.substack.com.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.