By Frank F Islam & Ed Crego, October 6th, 2026 (Image credits: Tom de Boor/JNCGPT56)

During his second term as president, with his unprecedented use of executive power, control over the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, and self-centered, independent initiatives, Donald Trump has made the U.S. Congress virtually irrelevant.

The midterm elections to be held on November 3 are less than one month away. The question becomes, if the Democrats win the majorities in both the House and Senate, will that restore the Congress to its intended status as an equal branch of the federal government, and a body in which there is compromise and collaboration.

It is looking more likely that the Democrats could win back both the House and the Senate. Even if they do, because of the current condition of our nation and Congress, it is unlikely they would be able to bring about meaningful change under this current regime, even during these trying times.

Thomas Edsall provides relevant thoughts on this condition in his New York Times essay, “What’s the Matter with Congress?” Edsall begins his essay asking:

Do the individual timidity of senators and representatives and their refusal to defy partisan pressures explain the failure of Congress to address key national issues, or is it that polarization has structurally locked the House and Senate into prioritizing each party’s interest over the national interest?

He then points out that he and his friend Steven Pearlstein, professor of public affairs at George Mason University, have different answers to that question, writing:

Steve faults the lack of bravery and integrity and the unwillingness to defend congressional prerogatives. I see the problem as a result of affective polarization in the form of partisan hostility, if not hatred.

Edsall asks “a group of experts, former members of the House, scholars and political scientists who focus on Congress” chosen by him and Steve to share their perspectives on “How much weight would you give these two views of the difficulties of Congress to take action in support of national interests?”

According to Edsall, “Most of the experts said both, but overwhelmingly they gave more weight to polarization as the primary factor.”

All of the responses were informative; the one we found most interesting was from Tom Daschle, a former representative and senator from South Dakota, who said:

…I strongly agree that breaking polarization is required to free up Congress. That is 60 percent of the equation. The other 40 percent requires a willingness on the part of both leadership and membership to compromise. Compromise is the oxygen of democracy. There is far too little of it today.

The polarization of Congress is a reflection of the polarization among and between we U.S. citizens.

In his piece, Edsall notes that although some surveys show that voters want elected officials to work together and to compromise, the truth is that they only want that to happen on issues that don’t matter to them. He cites a 2013 Pew Report, which put it bluntly: “Public Wants Compromise but Not on Issues They Care About.” And he also observes that most Congresspeople come from politically safe districts, and would be committing “political suicide” if they did not reflect the views of their constituents.

Pearlstein agrees with the experts surveyed about the fact that polarization and a lack of courage both contribute to Congress’ current condition, writing:

Whether it’s 60–40 or 50–50 I’m not sure is something anyone can answer and sort of misses the point. Obviously, it’s both, and the two create a vicious self- reinforcing cycle that accelerate both trends.

Given this “vicious, self-reinforcing cycle,” can Congress ever make a comeback? Cynthia R. Farina, professor of law at Cornell University, gives us some reason for hope in her essay for the Columbia Law Review, titled “Congressional Polarization: Terminal Constitutional Dysfunction?”

In the Introduction to her piece, Farina summarizes the key findings from her research which include:

• It has thus become impossible to think about the place of agencies in contemporary American government without first coming to terms with the political polarization that seems to jeopardize Congress’s constitutional responsibility for regulatory oversight.
• There has been steadily increasing distance between the Republican and Democratic caucuses since the 1980’s; this is largely accounted for by the Republican caucus becoming more conservative.
• The contemporary level is a record, but Congress has “recovered” from earlier periods of high polarization. The previous high point, 1890 to 1910, is especially noteworthy because of several apparent similarities with the present era.

She concludes her introduction, stating:

This review ultimately suggests that the rhetoric around congressional polarization — particularly around the likely continuation of partisan warfare and legislative gridlock — is far more negative than the existing evidence can justify. This is not meant to deny that Congress in recent years has experienced significant problems in fulfilling its constitutional role of policymaking and oversight. Rather, it is an argument against viewing the present era as so exceptional that it falls outside the historical ebb and flow of partisan contention, and beyond the capacity of existing constitutional institutions to survive.

Farina’s assessment gives us reason for hope. There’s only one problem: it was written in 2015, before Donald Trump’s two terms as president, the emergence of the MAGA movement, and Trump’s application of the “unitary executive theory,” with the assistance of the Supreme Court.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that Steven Pearlstein and Kevin R. Kosar, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), provide us with reasons for cautious optimism for why Congress can make a comeback.

Pearlstein stresses that there are many issues:

that aren’t so politically salient that members would be punished if a significant number participated in finding a solution acceptable to a bipartisan majority.

Regulating kids’ use of the internet. Raising minimum wage to $12. Encouraging use of clean energy and expanding the interstate grid. Regulating crypto. Getting money out of politics.

There is broad public agreement on reasonable policy proposals on many such issues that, if enough members voted for them, would not necessarily result in their losing a primary. Did anyone lose a seat because of the CHIPS Act? Infrastructure? No Child Left Behind? Sentencing Reform?

Kosar, in his AEI piece, advises us that there are actually two Congresses. According to him,

There is the Toxic Congress filled with raging partisans who trash-talk one another, reflexively support or oppose whoever is president, and cannot pass policy on major issues, like immigration. Then there is the Secret Congress of lawmakers who move myriad bills and gently curb the executive branch’s errors and excesses. It is little noticed by the public and undercovered by the media.

The Toxic Congress makes headlines because of its disputes and the Secret Congress receives little attention for its diligent work. The Secret Congress has passed and will pass legislation in the future similar to that defined by Steven Perlstein.

There is definitely a need to shrink the Toxic Congress and expand its Secret counterpart. That will not happen, though, unless citizens step forward, put the interests of their country ahead of their political partisanship, and elect people to office because of their competence, not their party label or extreme viewpoints.

As Kosar tells us at the end of his piece:

“We the people” need to push Democrats and Republicans to reform the First Branch by contacting legislators and telling them to reform Congress. More of us need to show up at candidate forums and raise this issue and then vote for the candidates who commit to working on it.

Americans also should push their home states to adopt electoral systems that better incentivize legislators to carry out their constitutional duties. Innovations such as instant runoff jungle primaries that pit candidates from all parties against each other in a single election can goad legislators to govern beyond the activists on the far right and far left.

So, a choice is before us: we can enact reforms to improve the performance of our national legislature, or we can shrug and do nothing. Both paths will give Americans the representative government they deserve.

Recent Gallup polls on approval of, and confidence in, Congress show extremely low marks for each. What we need to realize is that those low marks are a reflection of who we are as citizens, not just of those who represent us in our nation’s capitol and what they do or don’t do.

Congress can make a comeback. But it will only happen if “we the people” make it a priority for those we send there.