Make Congress Great Again

We need to unite around our Constitution, not be divided by party politics.

Painting showing Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, and Benjamin Franklin presenting the first draft of the Declaration of Independence to the Second Continental Congress. (Picture by Vernon Lewis Gallery/Stocktrek Images via Getty.)

This article is brought to you by American Purpose, the magazine and community founded by Francis Fukuyama in 2020, which is proudly part of the Persuasion family.

---

That we are facing the greatest threat to American constitutionalism since 1789 is beyond question. We need to stop treating the current situation as though it’s just another political scrum with the usual performative marches, signs, wailing, and arm waving. Our forefathers won our freedom with asymmetric warfare, ignoring the accepted battle norms of the day, finding new strategies, and changing the rules of the game. We need to do the same. We need to set aside the usual ways of doing things and adopt the “outside the box” strategies that can restore the norms of deliberative democracy.

First, we need to be clear about how we got here. Most Americans who voted for Republican candidates (or simply rejected Democrats) are not stupid, racist, or oblivious; to assume they are is to concede the future. Voting for Donald Trump and for members of Congress aligned with him was a serious and dangerous mistake, but not all grievances or desires for change were invalid. Whether the complaints were about policy or culture, it’s important to understand—and to address—those issues that drove half of America to settle on a bad choice rather than the alternative.

Second, we need to be clear about the threat. Failure to enact the policy outcomes you prefer is not a failure of democracy; it is a feature of democracy. Winners of elections will generally prevail in shaping laws and policies. Treating policy defeats as threats to democracy diminishes the effect of warnings against the higher-level threats to constitutional government. Opponents of policies one deems injurious should work aggressively to mobilize resistance, but on the grounds of policy, not as threats to the nation.

---

---

The real danger of this moment is not about any individual policy but the accretion of unchecked power in the hands of a single man. The essence of American constitutional government is twofold: the balance of powers between the federal government and the states; and the division of federal powers between equal and competitive branches, of which the greatest power—because it is most representative of the will of the people—rests in the people’s Congress. This power structure rests on both norms of behavior and a framework of institutions designed to ensure a continuing commitment to the nation’s foundational principles, including liberty, justice, security, and equality—all of which are currently under attack.

Breaching of due process (searches without warrants, arrests without charges, criminalization of speech, the elimination of Congress as a meaningful participant in government decisions) eliminates many of the core freedoms that lured our parents and grandparents to come to America, often at high risk—to be part of this land of promise, this land that men and women have died to protect on battlefields from Bunker Hill to Berlin.

Here is how we think outside the box.

First, recognize that the courts alone cannot stop the flood of constitutional breaches flowing from the White House: the judicial process is slow and limited in its powers. The one force equal to that of the presidency is the Congress of the United States. But both parties are executive-centric and focus their political strategies primarily on the election of a president who mirrors their own beliefs and goals. Members of both parties have long records of acquiescing to presidents of their own party and stretching the limits of constitutional permissibility to achieve a desired political goal. In the end, it is one party—its agenda, and its desire for political dominance—that supersedes the constitutional separation of powers that was designed to protect against exactly the kind of dictatorial threat we now face.

The primary focus now needs to be on reasserting Congress’s Article One role as maker of laws, decider of policies, distributor of funds, designer of taxation—and ensuring the election to Congress of men and women who recognize their constitutional obligations to check the ambitions of would-be kings. There will be new congressional elections in just 20 months: every one of the 435 members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the members of the Senate will be on the ballot. Long before that time, every one of those roughly 470 members of Congress will have to prevail in a first-round (primary) election, some limited to voters of the same party, some open to all registered voters.

Voters can be appealed to on the basis of policies, from tariffs to consumer protection agencies, when a candidate’s position is aligned with the views of the majority of voters. But regardless of policy preferences (the “inside the box” strategy) there will be one overriding issue on the ballot that supersedes in importance every singular issue: will you support reimposing—and enforcing—the Constitution’s limits on presidential power? Electing a Congress, whether conservative or liberal, that will restore the norms of legislative governance is the only true path to the survival of a constitutional democracy.

---

---

Second, we need to change the language and structure of our discourse. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, pleaded with the nation whose independence he did so much to win to not create political parties. For the most part, at least in modern terms, the founding generation heeded that advice. While there were alignments that brought early members of Congress together under shared labels, these allegiances tended to be restricted to a few broad ideas—more government power or less, differing policies toward various European powers—but they were nothing like today’s march-in-lockstep rival teams that repeatedly take the nation to the edge of calamity.

In 1950, scholars frustrated by a system in which they believed American political parties to be insufficiently distinct, published an article calling for (though they didn't use the term) more political warfare—parties that were more in conflict with each other and more internally cohesive. Instead of the compromises and collaboration that they believed watered down necessary government initiatives, people could choose between real options, much like the European party-centered parliamentary model the Founders rejected, and George Washington roundly denounced. It’s a system I have long criticized and to which I have devoted books and articles for more than 20 years, but it’s what we have and changing it—breaking the chokehold that parties have over government—will take more time than we have, given the threat at hand.

We need to change our view of the real rivals. Dividing up into competing teams of Democrats and Republicans will not provide an answer sufficient to the gravity of the problem we face. Neither party is popular: recent polls show Democrats with a 27% approval rate, but Republican poll numbers are underwater, too. Numbers vary, but well over 40% of registered voters now consider themselves Independents, which is a larger number than support for either of the two parties. The elections of 2026 cannot be the standard party-centered election between Republicans and Democrats. “None of the above” would likely beat either of the party alternatives.

There are real policy differences between the parties but those fights can be waged later; the war of the moment is between pro-authoritarian and anti-authoritarian forces. This division will not track neatly along party lines, especially given the sizable number of Republicans who expressed reservations about or disdain for a Trump presidency, and the number of activists in both parties who willingly accept executive orders to achieve their goals when Congress fails to deliver. But writing laws, authorizing government endeavors, doling out the funds to implement government’s goals and meet its obligations—these are all powers that belong with the people’s representatives, not a monarch claiming the whole of government as his toy to play with.

The battle therefore is over control of Congress—creating a force that can constitutionally bring a stop to much of what the current administration is doing. And if it’s an “inside the box” election—Democrats versus Republicans—there’s a strong chance Trump’s supporters will win at least one House of Congress. (Remember that 27% approval rating hanging around the Democrats’ collective neck.)

This is a battle that, like the ones that helped the united American colonies, will have to be waged in a new way. It cannot be a standard struggle between Republicans and Democrats. In this struggle, there are many men and women in both parties who do not want to see the United States align itself with authoritarian governments or become one itself. Divided, each political “team” is fixated on the accrual of political advantage, playing on a field of political primaries that advantage the most zealous and partisan. Donald Trump will not have to divide and conquer; his opponents will have divided themselves, to his benefit.

Some Republican members of Congress share the president’s worldview and goals, but some—traditional conservatives—support Trump out of fear of losing a party primary and ending their congressional careers should they oppose him. The best answer to force is an equal counter-force. Members of Congress who are afraid of the president need to be given something else to be afraid of: a well-organized and well-funded campaign that will end their careers if they don’t oppose his war on constitutional government. If a congressional district leans so heavily toward Republicans that the odds are against a Democrat winning but allowing a Trump loyalist to win would be unthinkable, it’s time to toss party labels aside, recruit the strongest possible pro-Constitution Republican candidate, and combine forces, financially and organizationally, to win the seat. In a district that leans toward Democrats, pro-Constitution Republicans and Democrats will have to come together behind a Democrat who believes in limits on presidential power, no matter who’s in the White House. Each state has different rules as to who can qualify to vote in primaries, whether a third-party or independent candidate can run in the general election, etc., so the strategy specifics will have to be tailored to the legal possibilities, but it’s time for asymmetric warfare, thinking outside the box, putting America’s democratic republic ahead of party agenda. For some, this will mean swallowing some bilious medicine—a cod liver oil strategy—by voting for someone who will oppose issues you favor or support issues you abhor, and this is certain to lead to bitter political struggles in the ensuing months. But that’s the way democracies work. Right now, returning to that process, rather than letting a single man wreak potentially irreversible damage to constitutional government, is the most important issue on the table. We can fight over the rest when the process is restored.

A divided America is easy prey for a callous exploiter of grievances. Division in the name of loyalty to a political club has gotten us to this point; it’s time to end it and come together around the principle of constitutionalism itself.

Mickey Edwards served in Congress for 16 years and was chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee. He has since taught at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs.

---

Follow Persuasion on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube to keep up with our latest articles, podcasts, and events, as well as updates from excellent writers across our network.

And, to receive pieces like this in your inbox and support our work, subscribe below: