As the news moves from the Trump-Russia-Comey stories to Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Accord, many on the left may be wondering: where’s Congress? Why aren’t they doing anything about - about - this mess? (At least, the liberal parts of this country. I’m sure many conservatives don’t see anything wrong)

Well, regarding the Paris Accord - unfortunately, the problem lies inherently in the way that the U.S. agreed to the accord. Back in 2015, given the Republican Senate, President Obama knew that he would never be able to reach a two-thirds majority on a binding agreement, mostly due to two reasons: one, that congressional Republican leaders no longer viewed climate change as legitimate science, and two, that most Republicans would vote against anything Mr. Obama tried to pass (somewhat similar to Democrats now, but only somewhat). Thus, he decided that the U.S. would enter the Paris Accord on a non-treaty basis, such that he would never need the Senate to ratify the agreement. Consequently, President Trump is able to pull out of the Paris Accord because he does not need congressional approval.

Yet in the case of the Trump-Russia-Comey scandal (again, not everyone sees it as a scandal), Congress could totally send a congressional inquiry into Trump’s actions. It’s not as if there isn’t precedent for this: Howard Baker’s famous line, “What did the president know and when did he know it?”, regarding Nixon and Watergate, was part of a congressional inquiry. But it’s pretty clear to see that much of our Republican Congress has no intention of investigating Trump’s actions. As a whole, Republicans are either shrugging it off, or denying it entirely.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) regarding Trump’s possible obstruction of justice: it “almost sounds like fake news.”

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard M. Burr: “somebody’s going to have to do more than have anonymous sources on this one for me to believe that there’s something there.”

Source: LA Times

And so to lots of Democrats, it seems as if Republicans are narcissistic pricks who lack a moral compass. And maybe this is true, maybe it’s not. But congressional Republicans are facing a dilemma: do I break with Trump, and risk the ire of conservative constituents (a large majority of Republicans still support Trump), or stick with Trump, keep my funding, and the support of my constituents and fellow Republicans? Say what you will about congressional Republicans, but they are walking a thin line, part of a larger, ever-present one: what do I do to keep my seat?

Right now, for Republicans, the answer seems to be (1) don’t protest against anything Trump does, even if you don’t like it, (2) don’t disagree with any Republicans more popular than you, (3) deny certain facts that threaten your constituents’ worldviews, (4) forget that climate change is bad. In doing so, Republicans believe that they might just be able to garner enough support to move their legislation through the government, thus increasing their chances of a re-election bid. Of course, Democrats do the exact same thing, except that it’s currently just much easier for Democrats than Republicans: (1) disagree with everything Trump says, (2) disagree with everything that Republicans say unless it makes enough sense to not disagree, (3) tweet defiantly about climate change and covfefe.

But what if Congress didn’t need to worry about their re-election bid, because they could only hold their seats for one term? On the downside, it would make it hard to enact legislation which requires years to pass, and it would make it hard for people to establish a political career strong enough for a presidential bid. It could make Congress forget why they were elected, and vote on issues contrary to what their constituents want. But then maybe congressmen would vote for their conscience, instead of popularity, and say what they’re really thinking.