The U.S. political system is at a dramatic crossroads, with American voters in the midterm elections about to decide the fate of 35 out of 100 Senate seats and all 435 seats in the House of Representatives.
Since the last midterm elections, in 2014, Congress has had a Republican majority, with the party controlling both houses. Almost all the predictions are that this is about to change, as the Democrats are expected to win the majority of the House and their chances of winning a majority in the Senate cannot be completely discounted.
If this happens, the political upset would be in line with the familiar pattern of American politics, which reflects the voters' desire to create balance between the various branches of government and prevent one party from having too much power for too long.
However, in the current political and social climate, which is fraught with tension and ideological hostility, any shift in the balance of power on Capitol Hill will have far more significant implications than ever before.
The Republicans are likely to maintain a narrow majority in the Senate and may even gain slightly, but the prevailing forecast – which gives the Democrats at least 23 new seats, and the majority, in the House of Representatives – raises the possibility of an escalation in the political and social hostility polarizing the United States to the point of creating "gridlocks" in the legislative process.
On the eve of these midterm elections, the White House faced a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, to try to preserve the Republican majority in the House, President Donald Trump had to adopt a conciliatory and unifying strategy that would underscore the common denominator between different ethnic groups.
This was necessary because the vast majority of the electoral districts giving the Democrats the advantage are located in suburban, affluent and educated areas, where the majority of voters hold moderate positions.
On the other hand, to win the majority of races for the Senate and ensure the Republicans continue to control Congress, Trump needed to adopt a completely contradictory strategy.
Since most of these races are held in "red" states, such as North Dakota, Montana, Missouri and Indiana, where incumbent Democratic senators must champion clearly conservative positions to have a fighting chance, the president needed to take a harder line to help Republican candidates.
In light of this contradiction, Trump has all but decided to come to terms with the fact that the Democrats will take the House in exchange for increasing the chances of the Republican maintain the majority in the Senate, which, among other things, exclusively controls the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court.
A direct result of this decision was the radicalization of the rhetoric coming from the White House.
Trump's harsh statements about illegal immigration, the threat to revoke the citizenships of children of illegal immigrants, the attacks on media and his aspiration to implement a "nationalistic" vision for the U.S. were all part of this strategy. The objective is clear: to mobilize and invigorate the Republican voter base, thus ensuring that the Republicans retain the majority in the Senate.
However, if this scenario materializes and the Republicans win the Senate but lose the House, the 45th president will have to deviate from this puritanical policy and adopt a more pragmatic approach that will ensure compromises with the Democratic majority in the House.
The alternative is an ongoing duel in Congress, which could disrupt the legislative process and hamper Trump's ability to govern in the next two years. As things stand, it remains to be seen where the White House is headed.
