Encyclopedia of Opinion
Question
Who should win the Georgia Senate runoffs?
Position‹2 of 2
One or both Republicans should win
Argument1 of 3›

Create a check on House Democrats

With a Biden Presidency, a Democratically led House will likely push some radical legislation on climate change, healthcare, and infrastructure. Electing two Republicans—and maintaining a Republican majority—would put a check on their power.

The argument

In January, Democrats will control two of the three branches of legislative policy. Maintaining a Republican-controlled Senate would allow for a check on their power, and encourage bipartisanship. Despite being a relative moderate, Joe Biden ran for President with the promise of proposing legislation supported by some of the more radical Democrats. Hefty climate change reform, healthcare reform, and a possible fight over the Supreme Court could all be coming under a Biden Presidency, and a Republican-controlled Senate would put a check on his more radical policies. Not only that, but a Democratically-controlled House on the heels of a Trump presidency could swiftly try to undo policies made under the 45th President. Radical Democrats have taken over the Democratic party, and the Republicans need a majority in the Senate to prevent the more radical wing from having unmitigated power. Georgia needs to elect one or both Republicans in its Senate runoffs to ensure a check on the radical left and to not allow the US to be controlled by left-leaning Democrats.

Premises

[P1]With Democrats set to control the presidency and the House, a Republican-controlled Senate would be the only check on their power. [P2] Though a moderate himself, Biden has promised legislation backed by more radical Democrats on climate, healthcare, and the Supreme Court. [P3] A Republican Senate would check those policies and encourage bipartisanship rather than letting one party rule unmitigated. [C] Therefore, to create a check on House Democrats, one or both Republicans should win the Georgia Senate runoffs.

Counter-arguments

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has shown a disregard for the norms of the Senate, stonewalling perfectly reasonable legislation and Supreme Court picks made by Democrats. Bipartisan legislation stands no chance with McConnell in the Senate, and Biden should not rely on Republicans to help him out during his Presidency.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise misdescribes the institutional picture. There are not "three branches of legislative policy", the presidency is not a legislative chamber, and a Senate minority retains substantial blocking power through the filibuster — which is in fact what constrained legislation in the Congress that followed. [Rejecting P2] "Radical" does evaluative work here rather than descriptive, and no measure of it is supplied. The proposals named are ordinary items of party platform on which the two parties differ, and describing a president as a moderate who will nonetheless pursue radical policy is a claim about hidden intent that the argument does not evidence. [Rejecting P3] The prediction did not hold. Both seats went to the Democratic candidates, and the Senate that resulted did not enact the programme the premise feared: the larger climate and social-spending bill was blocked by members of the president's own party, and the health and Supreme Court measures did not pass. The counter also disputes the bipartisanship claim from the other direction, which the argument does not address.