For most of the past dozen years, the Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress. What does the Democratic win over the House of Representatives in elections Tuesday mean for the United States—and the rest of the world?

Among the repercussions of the House being taken by the Democrats, perhaps the most far-reaching will be the impact it has on President George Bush’s ability to carry out foreign policy.

George Friedman of Stratfor asserts that the most important change resulting from the Democrats taking the House is that the leadership and staff selection of the powerful congressional committees will fall into Democratic hands. This means the Democrats will be able to launch investigations into all sorts of aspects of the Bush administration: whether it ignored warnings before 9/11, whether it really knew about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the conduct of the war in Iraq, the awarding of contracts for reconstruction in Iraq, domestic security measures put in place—and on and on it goes.

Bear in mind, as Friedman points out, “Congressional investigations are not about coming to the truth of a matter in order for the laws of the republic to be improved for the common good. They are designed to extract political benefit and put opponents in the wrong” (October 31).

This situation could not only gridlock Congress, but could also strongly affect public opinion of the nation. Because news outlets tend to fixate on major congressional hearings, whoever controls congressional investigations controls the news cycle, asserts Friedman. The Democratic House speaker will now be “positioned to orchestrate a series of hearings from multiple committees and effectively control the news cycles. Within three months of the new House being sworn in, the political landscape could be dominated by hearings—each week bringing new images of witnesses being skewered or news of embarrassing files being released” (ibid.).

Dr. Friedman went on to say,

Politically, this would have two implications. First, the ability of the White House to control and direct public attention would decline dramatically. Not only would the White House not be able to shut down unwanted debate, but it would lack the ability even to take part in setting the agenda. Each week’s subject would be chosen by the House Democratic leadership. Second, there will be a presidential election in two years that the Democrats want to win. Therefore, they would use congressional hearings to shape public opinion along the lines their party wants.

So how is this likely to affect America’s foreign policy? As difficult as it has been for the president to prosecute his war aims under present circumstances, imagine how much more so it would be if he and other policymakers were bogged down in a thicket of congressional hearings that were essentially hostile to his agenda. This is essentially what happened toward the end of the Vietnam War—a situation that makes crafting and executing an effective foreign policy downright impossible.

And what does this mean for the rest of the world? Good news for America’s enemies. Several nations are already taking advantage of the crisis overload currently throttling the U.S.—just look at the power plays Iran, Hezbollah and North Korea have made in the past few months. Opportunities for them, and others of America’s enemies, will only grow should the investigatory cycles begin to grind away in Washington.

At the same time, for America’s friends—and those that rely on its protection even while deriding it—it is time to be worried.

In a 1999 speech in the U.S., British Prime Minister Tony Blair pleaded to his American audience, “Never fall again for the doctrine of isolationism. The world cannot afford it. Stay a country, outward-looking, with the vision and imagination that is in your nature.”

Irwin Stelzer, writing for Britain’s Spectator, commented, “If you want to think about the effect of the American election on Great Britain [and America’s other allies], conjure a world in which the only nation with the power to take on nuclear North Korea and Iran is in the grip of political paralysis for two years, or is under pressure from Democrats reviving George McGovern’s 1972 isolationist cry of ‘Come home, America.’ If a rambunctious Congress does cause a hasty retreat from Iraq, and drives America into a cowering isolationism, the prime minister’s nightmare of a world unpoliced will become reality” (November 4; emphasis ours).

Stelzer concluded by saying we should “hope that America does not withdraw into itself, as it has done in the past, with horrendous consequences for world order.”

Regardless of how much America withdraws from the world scene, we can be sure that the ability of a divided Congress and nation to impact world events will diminish. This is a path prophesied for America in the Bible. Herbert W. Armstrong’s The United States and Britain in Prophecy explains why.