By Richard Benkin
Originally published in The Daily Asian Age (Dhaka), December 5, 2018
https://dailyasianage.com/news/152449/us-midterm-election-results
The day before the US midterm elections, I published an article analyzing the state of things and made some predictions. At that time, I wrote, "My own prediction is that Democrats will gain a net 20-27 House seats and either remain in the minority or narrowly win the House; while Republicans will maintain control of the Senate with a 53-47 majority, losing their seat in Nevada and picking off Democrats in North Dakota, Missouri, and Indiana," adding "but I could be wrong" because so many things were still unclear.
Unfortunately, almost no experts re-visit their predictions, especially if they were wrong; but we at The Daily Asian Age are more courageous than that-and believe that we owe it to our readers. So, how did this Daily Asian Age analyst do?
My prediction of a 20-27 net Democrat gain in the House was too low, and my belief that Democrats would remain in the minority or narrowly win the House was way off. In the end, Democrats picked up 40 seats and gained control of the US House of Representatives by 35 seats out of 435. That means Nancy Pelosi will become Speaker of the House again, and all House Committees will switch from Republican to Democrat chairs.
That's important because those are the people who decide what the House will consider for the next two years; and the Chairpersons have a chance to launch investigations; and the incoming Democrat Chairs of the House Judiciary and House Oversight committees already have suggested that these will be coming.
My Senate prediction of the final Republican majority (53-47) was right on the head, although I missed the Republican loss in Arizona and Democratic loss in Florida. Like the House, this determines who controls the agenda, and which party chairs committees.
Perhaps most significantly, increasing its Senate majority means that Republicans will have an easier time getting their judicial appointments approved. Appointment to the US Supreme Court are lifetime, and of the nine current justices, two are over 80, and they're both Democrat appointments.
This means that if either Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer retire over the next two years (or six if President Donald Trump is re-elected), Trump will be able to appoint his third justice, after Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who are two of the three justices under 60. That gives Republicans a chance to set a conservative agenda for decades.
The split decision also means bi-partisan control of the legislative branch, and Americans as a whole are uncomfortable with one-party rule.
On the one hand, Republicans can rightly claim that the midterm election in any president's first term of office has seen significant House losses. Former Democratic President Barack Obama lost 63 and former President Bill Clinton lost 54; although former Republican presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan bested Trump with a loss of 26 and a gain of eight respectively.
Election results might be a tossup between the two parties but could signify more. Democrats outpolled Republicans 54 to 43 percent, which suggests exceptional Democratic enthusiasm. History cautions Democrats that it is difficult to maintain that high level of enthusiasm.
Republicans should note that only half of the Democrat House pick up came in reliable Democrat states; about a quarter each came in Republican states and states that could vote either way. And US Presidential elections are won by carrying individual states. All of this bears watching as we move toward President Trump's re-election bit in 2020.
Foreign policy rarely arose during the election, although Democrats frequently claimed that the US has lost friends under Trump, and Republicans cheered his robust policies and foreign policy victories.
The President sets the conduct of US foreign policy. The House controls trade and tariffs, and the Senate must approve any treaties; however, there are ways around that. For instance, Obama called the Iran deal an "agreement" and not a treaty because the Senate would have rejected it; and Trump has negotiated several trade and tariff deals.
What this means for Bangladesh is unclear. Sentiments about issues like trade and tariffs, the persecution of Hindus, and other issues are the same among both parties.
That was on display at a recent briefing of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in the House of Representatives about human rights and the upcoming elections in Bangladesh. And as a participant in that briefing, I would suggest that the time for Bangladesh to change the situation for Hindus is getting smaller and smaller.
In all likelihood, whether the midterms were positive or negative for Bangladesh will depend largely on its on initiatives and of those advocating for human rights there. Perhaps both can come together and present a united front to US lawmakers.
The writer is an American intellectual and a geopolitical expert.