What Would Phil Bredesen Do?
By Sean Evans, Chair and Professor of Political Science
Sep 18, 2018 -
What would Phil Bredesen do? Would former Governor Phil Bredesen be the rubber stamp for the Democratic agenda as Republicans claim or would be he a centrist, bipartisan Senator as he claims? How Tennesseans answer that question may affect whether Bredesen can maintain his slight lead over Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn in the U.S. Senate race and whether, due to President Trump’s unpopularity nationwide, his victory would give Senate control to Democrats.
Most likely, Bredesen would probably support all but the most extreme Trump nominees but support much less of the Trump policy agenda. I base this conclusion by assuming he would vote similarly to the three most moderate Senate Democrats in deep red states (Indiana’s Joe Donnelly, North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin). Using fivethirtyeight.com’s Trump support score, their average Trump score is 57% which supports the centrist narrative. However a closer inspection shows that these Senators support confirming Trump’s nominees 78% of the time but only 44% of his policies. If you break the policies down further, they support 39% of his economic agenda (taxes, spending, and regulatory reform) and only 20% of the major Trump agenda items (taxes, trade, immigration, health care, Russia, and courts).
While Bredesen’s gubernatorial experience suggests that he is a centrist more interested in policy than politics, the polarized nature of Congress and legislative rules may make it difficult for him to be bipartisan. First, most of Bredesen’s centrist accomplishments occurred because he worked with a rather moderate state legislature. Today, Congress is very polarized and there are very few moderates in either party. The supermajority requirement to pass legislation in the Senate should empower moderates. However, moderates can’t be effective if there are not enough moderates in both party to bridge divides and there are too many extremists in both parties unwilling to compromise.
Moreover, the majority leader sets the agenda by determining what bills and nomination advance and controls the agenda by “filling the amendment tree” to prevent Senators from offering amendments. The majority leader’s agenda setting decisions will be partisan as they reflect the preferences of the caucus majority. The best example of the travails of bipartisan lawmaking is Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander who has similar centrist and bipartisan instincts. Yet, he has had limited legislative success, even though he is a committee chair. A freshman Senator Bredesen will have even less legislative success.
The larger question is not what a Senator Bredesen would do his first two years but what he would do his last four years. A historically unpopular Trump is unlikely to win reelection and will drag down multiple Republican Senators in swing states in 2020. An emboldened left is likely to push a more liberal agenda in 2021 and may try to end the filibuster. Would Bredesen oppose the extremist bills or work to change bills but support them in the end like moderates in the Obama years?
Overall, the evidence suggests that Bredesen would fairly consistently support his party. His best chance of acting in a bipartisan manner would require him to use the leverage of his vote in a narrow majority or form a coalition of moderates to force rules changes or changes in leadership behaviors to fast-track bipartisan legislation, make it easier to get votes on amendments, and guarantee committee markups and/or floor consideration of bills for all Senators.
This column originally appeared in the September 13th edition of The Jackson Sun