If you’re in the center, hope for Harris — and a GOP Senate

Want to hedge your bets against both the radical right and the radical left on Tuesday? Kamala Harris is the safer bet.

That’s because a Harris presidency would likely be checked by a Senate led by Republicans (not to mention a right-leaning Supreme Court). Donald Trump, in contrast, would likely enjoy unfettered, unified Republican control, which would likely result in a rubber stamp for anything and everything he — and JD Vance, Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson — dreams up.

And it’s not like Republican leaders in the respective branches of government are going to exert power to slow or stop “Project 2025,” or whatever agenda Trump chooses to pursue. Not this time. Remember, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) won’t be Senate majority leader. And unlike in 2016, when Trump inherited Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House, Trump’s pal Mike Johnson (R-La.) — or someone even more pro-MAGA — would be running the House.

The only thing that could impede Trump would be the absence of a filibuster-proof Senate majority — a complication that could be mitigated or rectified by executive orders, the budget reconciliation process, or even Senate Republicans nuking the filibuster altogether.

A President Harris, conversely, would likely face intense obstruction from a Republican-led Senate. In this capacity, passing legislation — one major hallmark of a successful administration — would require bipartisan compromise. For example, it’s possible we might finally see progress in passing a bipartisan border measure like the one Trump helped kill earlier this year.

If you’re worried that “San Francisco liberal” Kamala Harris might push through some radical left-wing agenda (banning fracking, decriminalizing border crossings, etc.), that seems highly unlikely.

But a second-term President Trump would have every opportunity to try and do radical things. He is not constitutionally eligible to run for reelection — not that electoral concerns would stop him from saying or doing anything controversial — so he wouldn’t be checked by short-term public opinion, either.

Now, if you support Trump's agenda — mass deportations, tariffs, etc. — then Trump having few checks and balances would be great. But if you were a “normie” conservative voter, only hoping for some tax cuts and a great economy, you might just get more than you bargained for. A lot more.

But if that’s not enough to persuade you that Harris is the safer bet, consider the other benefits of divided government, such as decreasing the likelihood of war.

As former Reagan administration economist Bill Niskanen noted in 2006, “In 200 years of U.S. history, every one of our conflicts involving more than a week of ground combat has been initiated by a unified government.” Perhaps not coincidentally, Niskanen also argued that divided government curbs spending.

Here, though, some formulations of divided government are better than others. For example, according to Manhattan Institute senior fellow Brian Riedl, “In recent decades…combining a Democratic president with a Republican Congress has produced the most fiscally restrained outcomes.”

That’s because “when a Republican Congress is paired with a Democratic president,” Riedl explains, “both the GOP’s natural deficit-hawk rhetoric and its partisan aspirations of curbing the president’s ambitions point in the same direction.”

The good news is that this is an entirely plausible scenario. Having a Democratic president who is checked by even just one house of Congress presents the sole combination where one of the political parties has a strategic and philosophical incentive to curb spending.

So why isn’t Harris shouting about this from the rooftops? Advertising the benefits of ticket-splitting would cut the legs out from under Democrats who are running for Congress. Not only would that anger the Democratic base at the very moment it need to be united and excited, it would undermine Harris’s ability to govern if she wins the presidency. There’s a big difference between facing a 51-seat Senate majority and a 55-seat majority.

That leaves it to people like yours truly to extol the benefits of divided government. Truth be told, though, I doubt that anyone will read this column and strategically decide to split their ticket. It seems more likely that ticket-splitters will do so based on personal or parochial reasons.

An Arizona voter might have nostalgia for the Trump economy, but see Republican Senate nominee Kari Lake as a bridge too far. Or a Montana voter might like Trump but decide to vote for folksy Democratic Sen. Jon Tester (D) for old time’s sake.

Divided government isn’t a panacea, but if you are a small-c conservative American who wants to keep politics from going off the rails these next four years, this is, by far, your best bad option. It’s Harris plus gridlock or bust.

Matt K. Lewis is a columnist, podcaster and author of the books “Too Dumb to Fail” and “Filthy Rich Politicians.”