Two Blue Waves, 52 Years Apart: What Can the 120th Congress Learn From 1974?

Posted on by
Reply

Watergate brought Democrats a sweeping victory in 1974. The 2026 midterms delivered another Blue Wave. The question now is what Democrats will do with their new majority.

Watergate brought Democrats a sweeping victory in 1974. The 2026 midterms delivered another Blue Wave. The question now is what Democrats will do with their new majority.

A historical parallel is emerging from the 2026 midterm elections. I’ve been watching the political pundits compare this year’s Democratic victories to the Blue Wave of 1974.

Vintage Richard M. Nixon inauguration button featuring his portrait, the American flag, and text reading “Inauguration Day Jan. 20th, 1973” and “37th President.”

The comparison makes sense.

In 1974, Democrats gained a net 43 seats in the House and expanded their Senate majority. The election followed the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon’s resignation, and Gerald Ford’s controversial pardon of his predecessor. The newcomers became known as the “Watergate Babies.”

In 2026, Democrats did something even more consequential: they captured both the House and Senate, flipping at least seven Senate seats and more than two dozen House districts. The victories represented a sweeping rejection of the Trump administration.

The two elections share more than impressive Democratic gains. Both followed periods of public disillusionment with the party controlling the White House.

In 1974, voters were angry about Watergate, the unpopular Vietnam War, rising inflation, and the energy crisis. In 2026, concerns about government corruption, the war with Iran, and the cost of living again helped drive voters away from the party in power.

The circumstances aren’t identical. Nixon had resigned before the 1974 election. Trump remains president. In both midterm election cycles, voters expressed a broader concern.

I’ll point out three similarities from 1974 that the incoming 120th Congress will face beginning January 3, 2027.

Government accountability: The unfinished Watergate lesson

Watergate exposed a system in which campaign money, political influence, and presidential power became intertwined.

Black-and-white cartoon of two men sitting at a restaurant table beneath a “Victory!” banner, with one holding wine and the other drinking Diet Coke while a worker sweeps the empty room.

Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President, known as CREEP, collected enormous sums, including illegal contributions. Campaign operatives participated in the Democratic Headquarters break-in at the Watergate Hotel. The Nixon administration attempted to conceal its involvement. Nixon ultimately resigned rather than face impeachment proceedings.

Nixon’s resignation was only part of the story.

The chain of events began ten months earlier.

In October 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned amid a federal investigation into allegations that he had accepted kickbacks while serving as Baltimore County executive, governor of Maryland, and vice president. As part of a plea agreement, he pleaded no contest to a federal charge of failing to report income on his tax returns.

Two days after Agnew resigned, Nixon nominated House Minority Leader Gerald Ford to replace him. Congress confirmed Ford, and he became vice president on December 6, 1973.

By the summer of 1974, the Watergate scandal had brought Nixon to the brink of impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment in late July. Nixon ultimately resigned on August 9, before the full House could vote on them.

A month later, Ford pardoned Nixon for any federal crimes he might have committed while president. The pardon sparked widespread criticism. Many Americans suspected a backroom deal and felt Washington’s political establishment had protected one of its own. The pardon sparked widespread criticism. Many Americans suspected a backroom deal and felt Washington’s political establishment had protected one of its own.

The Watergate midterm election brought a new generation of lawmakers to Washington determined to change the rules. Congress strengthened campaign finance laws, established the Federal Election Commission, and investigated abuses by government agencies. Subsequent legislation strengthened government transparency and ethics requirements.

The 2026 election raises familiar questions about conflicts of interest, personal enrichment, and whether public office is being used to benefit political insiders.

An Associated Press post-election poll found that voters viewed Trump as more focused on his personal fortune than their needs. Roughly seven in ten also believed Congress wasn’t doing enough to provide checks and balances on the president.

The incoming Congress has an opportunity to restore public confidence through meaningful oversight, financial disclosure, stronger conflict-of-interest protections, and independent government watchdogs.

Investigating past wrongdoing is important. Establishing rules that prevent it from happening again is even more important.

Healthcare reform: A missed opportunity from 1974

Here’s an interesting piece of history that deserves another look.

In 1974, President Richard Nixon and Senator Ted Kennedy were both pursuing national health insurance reform. They had very different ideas about how to accomplish it, but both recognized that the existing system left too many Americans without adequate coverage.

Nixon proposed a comprehensive insurance plan built largely around employer-provided private insurance, with government assistance for people who couldn’t obtain coverage through work.

Kennedy, working with Representative Wilbur Mills, advocated a more expansive national health insurance system financed through payroll taxes and general revenues.

Their representatives explored a possible compromise, but the two sides never reached an agreement. Watergate eventually consumed the Nixon administration, and the opportunity disappeared.

More than 50 years later, Americans are still struggling with healthcare costs, insurance premiums, prescription drug prices, and medical debt.

The 2027 Congress doesn’t have to begin by debating Medicare for All versus private insurance. It can start with areas where there is room for agreement: prescription drug costs, hospital pricing, insurance company practices, and out-of-pocket expenses.

The lesson from 1974 is that healthcare reform shouldn’t become another casualty of partisan politics. Nixon and Kennedy came closer to an agreement than many people remember. Perhaps today’s Congress can find common ground.

Environmental protection: From the EPA to the data center boom

Another surprising historical connection is environmental protection.

Richard Nixon, hardly remembered today as an environmental champion, proposed creating the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. Congress approved his plan to consolidate federal environmental responsibilities under one agency.

The EPA began operating in December 1970. The same period produced major environmental legislation, including the Clean Air Act amendments and the Clean Water Act.

Across party lines, there was broad recognition that protecting public health and natural resources required a national response.

The environmental challenges facing the 2027 Congress look different, but the need for government oversight hasn’t disappeared.

Consider the rapid expansion of data centers to support artificial intelligence and cloud computing.

These facilities require enormous amounts of electricity and, in many cases, water for cooling. Their construction can place substantial demands on local utilities and water supplies. Communities ask who pays for the infrastructure, whether electricity rates will rise, and what happens to local water resources.

State and local governments still make most decisions about land use, water allocation, and utility rates. Congress can’t dictate where every data center gets built.

Washington has an important role.

The incoming Congress could establish consistent requirements for disclosing electricity and water consumption, strengthen environmental reporting, encourage water recycling and efficient cooling, and use federal incentives to ensure developers account for the infrastructure costs their projects create.

The objective shouldnshouldn’tstop technological progress. It should ensure the benefits of artificial intelligence don’t come at the expense of the communities hosting the facilities or the households paying the utility bills.

In 1970, the federal government responded to the environmental challenges of its time by creating the EPA. In 2027, Congress needs to consider how existing environmental protections should apply to the challenges of a new technological era.

A Blue Wave: Accomplishment with a range of opportunities

The Watergate Babies entered Congress with a mandate to restore confidence in government. They helped change the rules governing campaign finance, transparency, and public accountability.

The 2026 Blue Wave offers Democrats a similar opportunity.

The 120th Congress could spend the next two years opposing Trump and investigating his administration. It also needs to demonstrate that a Democratic majority can accomplish more than resisting a Republican president.

Government accountability, affordable healthcare, and environmental protection are responsibilities of a government that serves the public.

The 1974 election showed what happens when voters lose confidence in the people running Washington. The 2026 election suggests that the same warning has surfaced again.

The incoming Congress’s real accomplishment will be giving voters a reason to believe in government again.

Health Care Reform: A Practical Path to Affordable Coverage

Posted on by
Reply

Health care should be a top priority for the incoming 120th Congress, which has recently announced priorities. Sweeping health care reform likely won’t happen, mainly because any legislation is likely to be vetoed. Much could be accomplished administratively, if executive departments are open to incremental changes.

Health care affects everyone, but not everyone experiences the system in the same way. Some Americans receive insurance through their employers. Others buy individual policies, are self-employed, rely on Medicare or Medicaid, receive veterans’ or military health benefits, or have no insurance.

Person in a wheelchair in a carpeted hallway of a care facility

Citizens may never have enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid, but they still have a stake in how those programs work. They pay taxes, support family members who rely on public programs, and experience the same rising health care costs that affect everyone else.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2025 report, employer-sponsored insurance remains the largest source of coverage, reaching 53.5 percent of the population. Medicare covers 20.1 percent, Medicaid 17.1 percent, and individually purchased insurance 10.5 percent. Veterans and military health programs cover additional populations. Approximately 26.7 million Americans went the entire year without health insurance.

These categories overlap, but they show the many ways Americans obtain health care coverage.

We also need to clear up a misconception about Medicare for All. Publicly financed health care isn’t necessarily socialized medicine. The government doesn’t own most hospitals or employ most doctors who treat Medicare patients. Medicare pays independent physicians, private hospitals, clinics, laboratories, and other health care providers for the services they deliver. Medicaid also relies heavily on private and community-based providers, alongside public facilities.

In other words, government financing and private health care delivery already coexist. Expanding coverage doesn’t automatically mean eliminating private hospitals, independent doctors, or the health care businesses that serve patients.

There is a distinction between preserving private health care delivery and preserving the existing insurance business model. Some Medicare for All proposals would replace much of the private insurance market for covered services. Insurance companies could lose some of their current business, although other models could retain them in administrative, supplemental, or other roles. Hospitals and physicians would continue delivering care, but payment arrangements and reimbursement rates could change.

The overall goal should be affordable, accessible health care, not winning an ideological argument about whether to finance it through socialism vs. capitalism. Rather than making the debate about government versus the private sector, Democrats can start with common-sense objectives that people across the political spectrum can recognize:

  • Lower prescription drug prices and out-of-pocket medication costs. The current administration is already doing this.
  • Reduce insurance premiums, deductibles, and unexpected medical bills. Many states, like Colorado, have approved “No Surprises” legislation. Premiums and deductibles are the sticking points.
  • Protect rural hospitals and expand community health centers. The “Big Beautiful Bill” provided for some assistance.
  • Improve access to primary care, mental health services, and addiction treatment.
  • Make health insurance more portable so people don’t risk losing coverage when they change jobs. Employers may still provide one plan for their workers, but the aggregate premium may be lower if employees assume part of the premium payment. Under Medicare, recipients pay around $200 per month.
  • Simplify the paperwork and administrative costs that burden patients, providers, and employers. I’ve seen my health insurance provider do this to better manage care and gather patient feedback to improve service delivery.
  • Thanks to Obamacare, people with preexisting conditions are still covered under most plans, as are dependents under 26. Medicare offers Medigap insurance to cover gaps. Medicare for All would likely include supplemental coverage policies.

I believe in an incremental approach. We don’t have to settle every argument about Medicare for All, single-payer insurance, or the role of private companies before we begin improving the system. We can build on existing programs, identify what works, address what doesn’t, and expand access as we go.

Unless you study Medicare and Medicaid—or rely on one yourself—you may not realize Medicare already offers a model that combines public financing with private insurance.

The Clinton administration and Congress established Medicare Part C through the bipartisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Originally called Medicare+Choice, it allowed beneficiaries to receive their Medicare benefits through private insurance plans rather than traditional fee-for-service Medicare. The program began in 1999 and was renamed Medicare Advantage in 2003.

Under Part C, Medicare pays approved private insurance companies a fixed monthly amount for each enrollee. The insurers assume financial risk for providing covered care. Most plans offer additional benefits, such as dental and vision coverage, along with copayments and annual out-of-pocket limits.

This isn’t socialized medicine. The government finances and regulates coverage, but private insurance companies administer the plans, while hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers deliver care.

Why not consider using this existing public-private model as a starting point for expanding affordable health coverage? Advantage plans also offer “dual coverage” for those on Medicaid and Medicare. Advantage plans offer Medicare for All. A universal system could borrow features of Medicare Advantage, extending access to regulated private plans and comprehensive benefits beyond today’s Medicare population.

We don’t have to settle the entire Medicare for All debate before making meaningful progress. We can start with what already works, address what doesn’t, and build toward affordable, accessible health care for everyone.

People with employer-sponsored insurance shouldn’t feel that universal health care means their doctors, hospitals, or insurance choices will automatically disappear. Medicare beneficiaries shouldn’t have to defend a system that works well enough for them. Veterans shouldn’t worry about losing specialized care. Small-business owners shouldn’t have to choose between providing health benefits and keeping their businesses afloat. People without insurance shouldn’t have to wait until a medical emergency to receive care.

Finding common threads starts by recognizing that Americans don’t have to agree on the ultimate design of the health care system to agree that getting sick shouldn’t threaten their financial security.

Democrats’ Path to a Lasting Majority: Common Threads

Posted on by
Reply

My mother’s Stitch and Bitch club might have a few lessons for the next Congress.

My mother belonged to a handwork club called the “Stitch and Bitch.” The name pretty much said it all. Women gathered around their handiwork, shared stories, exchanged opinions and, I imagine, solved a few of the world’s problems along the way.

I’ve been thinking about that club while watching the political aftermath of the 2026 midterm elections. My mom’s sewing circle picked a theme, and each member gave their interpretation. They disagreed, but accepted each other’s version as long as it fit the underlying theme.

It occurred to me that Democrats could learn a lesson from a group of women sitting around a table with needles, thread, and different ideas about what they wanted to make.

If Democrats want to turn the 2026 blue wave into a lasting governing majority, they need a bigger hoop going into the first 100 days of 2027.

To be honest, the new majority won’t be able to do much if President Trump keeps his word and vetoes any legislation that comes to his desk.

Regardless, the November 2026 general election delivered Democrats an opportunity. It didn’t deliver a mandate for a uniformly progressive agenda. The blue wave swept through some traditionally conservative states and districts, bringing along voters who don’t necessarily share the Democratic Party’s most progressive positions.

That’s an important distinction.

Democrats have spent considerable time arguing among themselves about their own members’ political leanings. Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, former West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, and former Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema all drew criticism from Democrats when they broke with the party on particular issues.

Their critics treated those disagreements as evidence of political disloyalty. Elected representatives have a responsibility to represent the people who sent them to Washington.

In 2009, incumbent Representative Marilyn Musgrave of Congressional District 4 focused on culture wars and aligned herself with an unpopular president.

Sound familiar? CD 4 is now the home of Lauren Boebert.

A newcomer, Betsy Markey, soundly defeated Musgrave. The Democrats coerced her into voting for Obamacare. Two years later, she lost by 12 points to Republican Corey Gardner. Markey’s loss created a domino effect. In 2014, Gardner upset incumbent Democrat Mark Udall and became an integral member of the so-called “Make America Great Again” coalition.

The moral of the story? A Democrat representing a conservative constituency faces different political realities than a Democrat representing Boulder, Manhattan, or San Francisco.

The incoming Congress will include more Democrats representing places where progressive politics don’t resonate, like South Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas. If party leaders expect those members to vote as though they represent the same constituency, they risk turning an electoral victory into a political liability.

Look what happened in 2026.

Democrats don’t have to abandon their principles or move wholesale to the right. A successful political coalition needs room for different opinions.

The common thread: Getting through life with fewer financial burdens

If Democrats want to govern, they should begin with issues that matter to people regardless of their political affiliation.

They don’t have to agree on every policy detail. They need to identify problems that Americans share and find practical ways to address them.

Over the next few days, I’ll share some ideas on how the new Congressional majority can improve everyday life.

What could Democrats accomplish if they spent less time arguing over ideological purity and more time addressing shared concerns?

Here’s a teaser about six places to start:

  • Bring down prices. Help families manage the cost of groceries, utilities, housing, childcare, and other expenses that eat into their paychecks.
  • Provide less expensive healthcare. Lower prescription drug and insurance costs while protecting access to doctors, hospitals, mental health services, and addiction treatment.
  • Build more entry-level houses. Give younger families a realistic shot at homeownership and make rental housing more affordable for people at every stage of life.
  • Invest in jobs and practical education. Expand trade schools, apprenticeships, community colleges, and workforce training while continuing to support universities and research.
  • Make communities safer. Support effective local law enforcement, police accountability, responsible gun ownership, and practical efforts to reduce violence.
  1. Invest in jobs and practical education. Expand trade schools, apprenticeships, community colleges, and workforce training while continuing to support universities and research.Fix immigration. Secure the border, enforce immigration laws, maintain a workable legal immigration system, and create a fair process for people who have built their lives here.- Keep energy affordable and reliable in the age of AI. Modernize the electric grid, develop dependable energy sources, and address the enormous power and water demands of data centers.

None of these issues belong exclusively to one political party. Democrats don’t have to agree on every solution, but they should be able to find enough common thread to get something done. That’s what creating multiple designs in a bigger embroidery hoop is all about.