The prospects of Democratic House "bipartisanship" with the Trumpists

Josh Chafetz does a reality-check on what Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker could really accomplish with the Democratic majority in What Can Nancy Pelosi Do Now? Politico 11/07/2018:

Let’s get one thing out of the way immediately: It won’t come primarily in the form of passing legislation. Indeed, even the supposedly “unified” Republican government of the past two years has produced almost no legislation of note beyond a large tax cut. The one type of legislation that has moved through the current Congress (mostly) has been appropriations bills (and their uglier cousin, the continuing resolution). In the next Congress, Democratic policies will surely find their way into appropriations bills, although that would be more a continuation of the past two years than a break with it. And while there’s always the remote possibility of a grand bargain over infrastructure, we probably shouldn’t be any more sanguine about the next two years of Infrastructure Week than we’ve been about the past two. [my emphasis]

So the idea of bipartisan cooperation on any meaningful major legislation is pretty much is pretty much a non-starter.

"Infrastructure projects" has become amostly empty buzzword for some kind of building projects. We know what the Trump infrastructure plan is, basically a massive privatization and corporate-subsidy scheme. Paul Krugman wrote about it in February (Trump Doesn’t Give a Dam New York Times 02/12/2018):

Donald Trump doesn’t give a dam. Or a bridge. Or a road. Or a sewer system. Or any of the other things we talk about when we talk about infrastructure.

But how can that be when he just announced a $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan? That’s easy: It’s not a plan, it’s a scam. The $1.5 trillion number is just made up; he’s only proposing federal spending of $200 billion, which is somehow supposed to magically induce a vastly bigger overall increase in infrastructure investment, mainly paid for either by state and local governments (which are not exactly rolling in cash, but whatever) or by the private sector. And even the $200 billion is essentially fraudulent ...

So it's hard to imagine that Trump and the loyally Trumpified Republican Party will agree to any meaningful "bipartisan" infrastructure program that doesn't involve the Democrats basically totally surrendering to Trump.

Chafetz continues:

One important source of power will come via oversight. Democrats will now hold the gavels in all committees in the House, which means they will set committee agendas and control the subpoena. With Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) taking over the Intelligence Committee chair from Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), we can certainly expect the committee to reopen and reinvigorate its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, with a special focus on whether the Trump campaign colluded or the Trump administration tried to cover it up. With Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) set to take the gavel of the Oversight Committee, we can expect deep dives into everything from how the White House has handled security clearances to alleged venality by various current and former administration officials. And with Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) set to lead the Judiciary Committee, impeachment proceedings—whether against the president or others around him - remain a live possibility. ...

Crucially, the most important way that all of these mechanisms work is through their publicity. Congressional hearings are, among other things, a form of political theater. Like all theatrical productions, they can be staged well or poorly, and, when done well, they can change their audiences’ minds and move them to action. When the hearings are over some high-stakes issue, they can capture the public’s imagination and lead to real consequences.

Oddly, after this he reverts to the conventional press wisdom that the Democrats have to walk on eggshells (my summary) in order not to alienate some imaginary section of voters who would vote for Republicans instead of Democrats if the Democrats actually fight Trump.

To be fair, he puts it in kind of a Mugwump way: "This means that Democrats will have to resist the Gingrich-like urge to be maximally combative, and instead be judiciously combative. They need to lay the groundwork for their fights."

Fun fact for the day: Mugwump was the description used for "a reform-oriented faction of the Republican Party that refused to support the candidacy of James G. Blaine for the presidency in 1884. Instead, the Mugwumps supported the Democratic nominee, Grover Cleveland. Their leaders included Theodore Roosevelt, George Curtis, and Henry Cabot Lodge; all returned to Republican ranks after the defeat of Blaine." ("Mugwump." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2014)

It came to be a generic term for fence-straddlers.