The New Majorities Must Proceed on Two Agendas

 The New Majorities Must Proceed on Two Agendas

When the Democrats win control of Congress, they will inherit more than committee gavels. They will inherit a country worn down by corruption, political intimidation and the demand to treat each new outrage as yesterday’s news. The temptation will be to declare the past finished and turn to the cost of groceries. Democrats must refuse that false choice. A majority can address the kitchen table and investigate who has been stealing from it.

The first step should be to establish Select Committees in both the House and Senate. Each committee needs a clear mandate, experienced investigators and the authority to follow evidence wherever it leads. They should coordinate their work, share information under agreed rules and avoid turning every hearing into a shouting match. Their investigations should examine this administration’s conduct, the use of federal power for private or partisan purposes, foreign influence, government contracts, January 6 and any effort to obstruct lawful oversight.

I would ask Jack Smith to serve as chief counsel to one or both committees, if he is willing and the legal and ethical requirements permit it. He investigated Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents. He knows the evidence, the legal standards and the tactics used to obscure the record. His role would not be to pronounce anyone guilty or turn congressional hearings into a courtroom. He would help the committees ask the right questions, preserve evidence, test claims and produce findings that can withstand scrutiny.

Congress should also prepare an impeachment strategy. That does not mean declaring in advance that the president must be impeached. It means examining the evidence, identifying conduct that may constitute impeachable abuse and preparing a public, fact-based case if the evidence warrants it. The House has the power to impeach; the Senate has the power to try the case. Members must explain those roles honestly and never confuse impeachment with a criminal conviction.

Criminal accountability belongs to prosecutors and courts. Congress can document potential crimes and refer evidence to federal or state authorities when the facts and jurisdiction support it. That same discipline should guide subpoenas and investigations. Follow the money in Trump family business dealings, government contracts, foreign contacts and private diplomatic channels. Examine the political use of federal agencies and taxpayer funds. Preserve records before they disappear.
If the evidence clears someone, say so. If it establishes wrongdoing, say that plainly. Justice loses its meaning when it becomes a party’s revenge. It loses its meaning just as surely when powerful people are exempted from it.

“Moving on” cannot mean erasing January 6. The officers who defended the Capitol deserve a permanent memorial there, and the public deserves an honest account of the attack on the lawful transfer of power. Record the names of those who organized, enabled or excused the assault. Tell the story without euphemism. Reconciliation that requires the injured to forget while the powerful keep their rewards is not reconciliation. It is surrender with a nicer name.

Democrats must govern at the same time. They should pursue practical measures on health care, wages, housing, energy costs and taxes. They should explain how corruption reaches household budgets. When public contracts become favors, government decisions enrich insiders or wealthy interests avoid obligations borne by workers, ordinary people pay. Accountability is not a distraction from economic life. It is one way to protect it.

Congress should ask another question directly: Why do Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Xi Jinping’s China find so much opportunity in Trump’s America—and why do so many Republican leaders accommodate the consequences? Russia’s interference in the 2016 election is established. A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Putin ordered an influence campaign and documented Russian cyber operations and efforts to deepen American divisions.

Those findings do not prove that every Republican is controlled by Moscow. They do not establish that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia. They do establish that Russia tried to shape American politics. Its leaders benefit when Americans lose faith in elections, allies and their own institutions.

China is a different case and deserves a different argument. The Chinese Communist Party is an authoritarian government pursuing its own power; it is not the Chinese people. U.S. intelligence assessments describe China’s economic support for Russia and Iran as helping those governments withstand sanctions. The Trump–Xi summit left major disputes unresolved, including Taiwan, technology and China’s support for Iran. These facts warrant investigation into policy, access and influence. They do not, by themselves, prove that Beijing engineered Trump’s rise or controls Republicans.

Ask the hard questions without manufacturing the answers. What does Putin gain when an American president excuses Russian aggression, weakens confidence in alliances and treats a dictator’s approval as more valuable than an ally’s trust? What does Xi gain when Washington is consumed by internal feuds, American alliances fray and foreign policy becomes entangled with private interests? Both governments benefit when the United States becomes less coherent and less trusted. That is a strategic judgment, not proof of a secret deal. Congress must investigate the evidence rather than replace it with a slogan.

Democrats should also prepare for presidential veto threats. They cannot erase the constitutional veto, and they should not pretend otherwise. They can write focused bills, separate popular measures from provisions designed to provoke a veto, and use budget reconciliation for measures that qualify. They can exercise the power of the purse through lawful appropriations, hold votes that put every member on the record, use oversight powers that do not depend on presidential approval and challenge unlawful actions in court.

When a veto blocks a measure with broad support, Democrats should seek the votes to override it. If they fall short, they should make the president and congressional allies explain their choice to the public. That is how to meet a veto: use every constitutional tool available and let voters see who stands in the way.

This is what it means not to be timid about constitutional duty. Issue the subpoena. Hold the hearing. Demand the records. Protect the witnesses. Investigate foreign influence. Prepare impeachment articles if the evidence warrants them. Refer possible crimes to the proper authorities. Pass legislation that can survive a veto—or make the veto itself a public test of whose interests the administration serves.

A majority’s duty is to govern and remember. Deliver improvements people can feel. Investigate abuses people have been told to forget. Apply the law equally, even when equality becomes inconvenient to the party in power.

The country cannot repair what it refuses to name, and it cannot restore trust by turning accountability into another partisan weapon. Follow the facts. Tell the truth. Use every constitutional power the people entrusted to Congress.

STC