Dan, the last thing I want to do is start making excuses for Republicans — after all, I have argued more than once that the current crop lacks, in sufficient numbers, the steel it will take to roll back Obama’s gains. Still, I took Rep. Jordan’s remarks as a simple statement of reality: “If we win, what will we get done? Mostly, I’ll be honest, most of what we can get done is have the big fight, have the big debate, and have the framework for the 2012 election.”

Even if the GOP takes back both chambers, they will not have veto-proof majorities (either in straight Republican numbers or in the sense of a “working majority” that assumes peeling off some Dems). The president is obviously not going to sign off on what he regards as his signature progressive achievements. Consequently, the best the Republicans can expect — and this would be pretty good — is to tee up repeal, force Obama to veto it, and set up the 2012 election as being about the president who is the obstacle to reversing policies the American people despise.

I don’t have great hope for repeal, though I devoutly hope I am wrong. In any case, though, it’s a project that has to take at least two election cycles: first developing a mandate for repeal and finally electing a president who is willing to execute the mandate. So if they win in ’10, they have to start the ’12 campaign instantly. Anything else means collaborating with the White House in the consolidation of Obama’s new New Deal — which, though it would force Obama to give some ground, would on the whole be a permanent victory for big government.

Beyond that, I think the biggest task of the next Congress will be to confront unilateral executive governance. This administration obviously thinks it can impose its priorities administratively if Congress won’t go along. Congress has exacerbated the problem by making gargantuan bills (some well over 2000 pages) the new norm — meaning the bureaucracy, enabled by these monstrous new statutes, is turned loose to write and enforce thousands upon thousands of pages of regulations.

I would also expect the administration to get very active in the foreign affairs realm. It is there that all presidents traditionally exercise supreme authority, so there will be immense opportunity for mischief — e.g., executive agreements with foreign countries that attempt to end-around the requirement of Senate consent for treaties, and executive policies that accept “customary international law” as imposing new restrictions on Americans and on the states despite the absence of treaties or legislation.

If I am right that Obama is not a conventional politician, that he is a movement leftist who cares more about imposing his program than being reelected, we are in for a very difficult time, beginning with the lame-duck session right after the election. And if you thought the last two years were bad in terms of transparency, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet. As long as the president had commanding majorities in Congress (2009-10), he had a powerful incentive to ram through unpopular legislation. Legislation is a relatively open process. Even with all the backroom horsetrading, the process of passing laws requires public debate and public voting. But executive agencies conduct much of their business behind closed doors, and they are notorious for ignoring congressional oversight demands. We could end up longing for the days when you had to pass the bill in order to know what was in it; soon, you won’t know what your government is doing until it’s already done.