When Americans go to the midterm polls barely three weeks from now, they will elect a new House of Representatives, 36 state governors and thousands of state legislators and lesser office-holders. Virtually all of the national attention, however, will be focused on the US Senate.
Thirty six of the Upper House’s 100 seats will be at stake, but most of those are safely held by one party or the other. What the political world is really focused on are about ten close or potentially close races. Republicans need a net gain of six seats to secure a majority in the Senate and, with it, full control of the US Congress (no one seriously disputes the GOP’s lock on the House).
For readers in the UAE and elsewhere in the Middle East, the obvious question is: So what? Will US President Barack Obama’s foreign policies be markedly different if his opponents control the national legislature? If there is one area where presidents have always had great latitude, after all, it is foreign affairs — be they civilian or military.
This question is particularly relevant since it focuses on the Senate. Though it has never been known for quick action, over the last 15 years, the Senate has become a model of parliamentary dysfunction. Democrats began this process when George W. Bush was the president, using the Senate’s arcane rules to make passing laws even slower and more difficult than it has traditionally been. It is, however, Republicans, in the minority throughout Obama’s presidency, who have raised obstruction to previously unheard-of levels, insisting on turning even the simplest and most routine of bills into bitter partisan battles. This might all change with a change of parties, but it is a much safer bet that it has simply become the new normal.
It can be argued that, regardless of who controls Congress, Obama is going to focus more of his attention on foreign policy with each passing month. Presidents nearing the end of their time in the White House (Obama is constitutionally barred from seeking a third term) inevitably do so. It can also be argued that sniping from Republican senators over Obama’s foreign policy can be safely ignored most of the time. The same senators who criticise his every move today while in the minority will continue to do so if and when they become the majority. Being in the majority makes it easier for them to call hearings designed to embarrass the administration — but few people outside Washington pay attention to such things.
On a more practical level, a Republican Senate will not make it harder for the administration to reach a nuclear deal with Iran. Because there has never been any chance that the Senate could muster the super-majority required to approve a treaty with Tehran it has always been assumed that any deal will take the form of an executive agreement (i.e. something that is legally binding on the administration but does not require Congressional approval).
The lone foreign policy issue that has intruded into this year’s campaign is Daesh (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). The group’s rise has prompted Republicans to claim (implausibly) that if there were simply more American soldiers in the Middle East, everything would be OK. Expect to hear more of that in the months to come, but do not look for the complaints to do much to change US policy.
A Republican Senate will surely combine with the Republican House to pass bills it knows Obama will never sign because it wants to force him into politically embarrassing vetoes. A few of these will focus on foreign policy and the Middle East, but these are sure to be outnumbered by measures focused on domestic affairs.
All this could, of course, be a moot point. The election has not taken place yet and while any oddsmaker would surely say that the field favours the Republicans right now, a lot can happen in three weeks.
In domestic terms, the coming election has the potential to shake up the US system, define the final two years of the Obama presidency and reset the field of Republican candidates vying to replace him (on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton so dominates the scene that November’s vote will have no real impact on her more-or-less inevitable decision to run). For election-watchers beyond America’s shores, however, the changes are likely to be incremental at best.
Gordon Robison, a longtime Middle East journalist and US political analyst, teaches political science at the University of Vermont.
