The best thing that could happen to Donald Trump is a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives after the 2018 mid-term elections.

Before the nice men in the white coats, armed with straitjackets, are dispatched to my front door, let me explain.

Even the most loyal of our president’s supporters must admit, if only in the darkest recesses of their minds, that from time to time (as in most of the time) The Donald can be somewhat, shall we say, impulsive? He takes pride in proclaiming that his decisions are often driven by his gut instincts—even though those decisions can sometimes lead to gut-wrenching results.

However questionable some decisions appear to be, they are not necessarily fatal to the republic because the guys in the powdered wigs and white stockings who came up with the Constitution foresaw the possibility of someone with delusions of grandeur or authoritarian tendencies coming to power.

James Madison, often called the “Father of the Constitution,” once said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” What he meant was that the Constitution did not expect the people, or their officeholders, to be always virtuous and respectful of one another, it expected them to often pursue their own self-interests. Consequently, the framers took steps to minimize the damage if someone in a position of power, such as a president, acted in their own interests, or impulsively, and not in the interest of the public-at-large.

The control mechanism built into the system is called the “separation of powers,” the idea that there are three branches of government, and each can block the actions of the other two.

Short of enacting or refusing to enact legislation, the Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, was, and is, intended to fulfill another role, that of sounding board – or brake – to react to presidential initiatives.

If presidential action raises questions of legality or advisability, it is the constitutional duty of members of Congress to speak out, initiate debate, and not act as mere rubber stamps.

This part of the constitutional construct is not working. A sizeable majority of the Republican caucuses in both chambers appears to be more concerned with their own re-election chances than they are with their constitutional responsibilities. Afraid of being “primaried” by Trump loyalists, they sit mute, refusing to provide any restraint to the actions of a president who has yet to demonstrate he has any self-restraint at all.

Not only is this abdication of responsibility not good for the country, ironically it is not good for the president. Without any congressional restraint evident, and left to his own devices, while the president thrills the roughly one-third of the electorate who support him, he digs himself into an even deeper hole with the two-thirds who have serious reservations.

You would think that someone might mention to him that having two-thirds of the country against you is not conducive to being re-elected. (On second thought, mum’s the word.

Now, about that Democrat-controlled House…

Rest assured, there would be a whole lot of oversight. But perhaps that oversight might well save the president from some of his more impulsive forays into national policies, policies of which he has only a rudimentary understanding.

It may seem strange to have a Democrat-majority House save Donald Trump from himself, but even though it would be a dirty job, for the sake of the republic, someone must do it. His fellow Republicans certainly have not.

The response: But he would get impeached!!

Maybe, maybe not. While there would be enough Democrat votes to impeach in the House, there are unlikely to be enough votes in the Senate to convict. Why embark on a course of action that is doomed to ultimate failure?  Why risk making an unbridled president a more sympathetic figure, and further motivate his base? Will Democrats so soon forget how they benefitted from the backlash that occurred after the botched impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton? The better course of action may be to prevent anything catastrophic from getting through the Congress – and calling that a victory.

Another: But nothing would get done!

Folks, with the factional infighting within the Republican caucuses, nothing much is getting done now. If a Democrat majority in the House was short-sighted enough to be blatantly obstructionist, it will have gifted the next crop of GOP candidates with the issue of a do-nothing Congress. And that’s an issue currently owned by Republicans, and currently being exploited successfully by Democrat challengers.

And another: But it just sounds crazy!

As if political craziness has been an alien concept over the last 18 months or so? Or even before that if you take into account Mitch McConnell’s partisan high jacking of President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland!

I know it sounds strange to theorize that Democrats should come to the fore to save the president from himself, but after all, the fate of the republic is more important than the fate of the man.

Anything to be of help.