A nation of Trump-gripped testicles

Separated by 145 years are two like-minded, lawless pronouncements on the lawful powers of the U.S. presidency -- both issued, unsurprisingly, by lawless presidents themselves.

When asked, three years subsequent to his fall, if the nation's chief executive can act illegally in whatever he considers the nation's best interests, Richard Nixon replied that "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal." Scores earlier, Andrew Jackson is reputed to have said (the actual wording is probably apocryphal; the sentiment real) in response to an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling: "[The Chief Justice] has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Nixon had lost political protection for his past crimes, and so he went down. Jackson retained his, and so, with impunity, he prevailed. The nation's highest, co-equal check on presidential power -- the U.S. Supreme Court -- was rendered impotent in the face of despotic audacity. (Jackson's 1832 realpolitik foreshadowed Stalin's keen appreciation of material executive power over conceptual authority: "How many divisions does the pope have?" Indeed, how many divisions did Justice Marshall have?)

As a traumatized America confronts the specter of yet another lawless president, in President Jackson's authoritarian arrogance lies the empirical rub. A vital institutional check on executive power was peremptorily and triumphantly dismissed for what, in raw actuality, it was: unenforceable words on paper. And President-elect Trump has evinced numerous signals of a Jacksonian redux -- or, rather, reduxes. The Supreme Court be damned, should he so choose. Conversely, he may not even be troubled by such institutional pushback, since he'll soon be appointing sympathetic members of the very Court charged with co-branches oversight.

That leaves the incoming Republican Congress as President Trump's chief institutional rein, which, given the GOP's contemporary pursuit of unfettered power over any first principles, almost certainly means no rein at all. Trump is likely to enjoy the political protection that Nixon lost.

What, then, presents itself as a capable check on Trump's seemingly determined authoritarianism? From what I have read, despairing commentators are offering nothing but platitudes, drenched in traditional American values marked for fierce extermination by the 45th president. This morning, Michael Gerson's urgings are representative of conscientious observers' helplessness. To wit, "It will now fall to citizens and institutions to ... defend the legislature and judiciary from any encroachment" -- by an allied encroacher? -- and to "expand and defend the institutions — from think tanks to civil liberty organizations — that make the case for a politics that honors human dignity." Similarly, Gerson's Post colleague, Fred Hiatt, has counseled that the "courts, the media, state governments and, above all, the citizenry ... all have roles to play."

They do. And yet, the nation's primary and potentially antagonistic role-players within the American political system -- the legislature and judiciary -- seem destined for the Trump-cooperating sidelines. The nation's citizens? Its media? Its think tanks and civil liberties organizations? How many armed divisions do they possess? They will be free (for a while, anyway) to issue condemnatory judgments on Trump's assorted authoritarian acts, but utterly unenforceable those judgments shall be.

With some haste I should add that I don't mean to be critical of the above, virtuous voices of vigilance, for my alternative counsel is just as pitiably barren. Our hearts and minds may not follow, but do let us face the arresting truth: President Trump will have us by the balls.

 

Comments

[Matt]

What's truly sad about this is how closely this election cycle is mirroring 1968, with Trump playing the role of a horrible Goldwater/Nixon hybrid. It's hitting the exact same beats--Pundits/Dems thinking recent history/digital progress has buried the Republican party/conservativism, rural/white America feeling ignored by Washington, racial unrest ala the Watts Riots/BLM (I'm not giving the two movements equivalence, but you can bet the average Trump supporter does), a scheming manipulator promising to make things the way they used to be, and Dem/Pundit flailing because they don't get how society could "regress."

My greatest fear is we'll continue living in this time loop and be forced to suffer an equally populist (and thus unsustainable) Democratic President (Bernie? Ellison?) before suffering under another eight years of corporatist economics. (Paul Ryan?)

[Matt]

"digital" should be "social" in the above.

[David & Son of Duff]

"A vital institutional check on executive power was peremptorily and triumphantly dismissed", er, by President Obama actually who ignored the Congress and issued 260 Executive Orders, slightly less than 'Dubya'(291) but nowhere near as many as Bill Clinton(364).

[Peter G]

This may come as a shock but executives are supposed to issue orders, specifically executive orders. It may also come as a shock but it is also easily verifiable that Prime Ministers under parliamentary systems of government have considerably more power to issue such decrees (interpretations of law subject to judicial review) than any president ever had. And they do.

Now if you would be so kind as to point out the SCOTUS order that Obama chose to ignore you might have a case. But there isn't so you don't. Parenthetically I wonder if May is going to ignore the court order to subject Brexit to Parliamentary approval. And if Parliament, the elected representatives of the people, fails to comply with her wishes will she ignore both Courts and Parliament?

[The Dark Avenger]

When and where did Obama ignore the Congress, old sport? You're just passing along what you've read without doing any checking first, as usual.

[Peter G]

I wouldn't call it a thin reed on which to hang hopes, by which I mean expecting the institutions of government to guard their prerogatives against encroachment by the executive. History, as you point out, provides examples to the contrary. But it is not sturdy.
The key point of your argument as I see it is whether or not Trump, or the Trump administration will get cover from Courts or Legislatures for what they choose to do. I think that will happen on a case by case basis. Trump will have far greater latitude on foreign affairs but on domestic issues the same minefields of interest persist. He may not be a professional politician but Congress is composed of such and they'll need to get re-elected.

[Anne J]

All I can say is....drain a swamp, create a sinkhole.

[Max]

Indeed. In actual fact, Obama tried way too long to placate the Republicans in Congress, before finally realizing - way past when he should have - there was no point in doing so.

[Marc McKenzie]

Um, David--you do know that the President--any President--is allowed to sign EOs? And that Congress--or at least, Congress beginning in 2011 when the GOP took over the House and was completed with their Senate takeover in 2015--pretty much was engaged in a "block Obama by any f**king means necessary" strategy?

You DO know that, right?

Oh wait...you obviously did not know. Otherwise, you would never have written such a bone stick stone stupid comment.

(Although to be frank, a bone or stick or stone is probably more intelligent than you.)

[David & Son of Duff]

"And that Congress--or at least, Congress beginning in 2011 when the GOP took over the House and was completed with their Senate takeover in 2015--pretty much was engaged in a "block Obama by any f**king means necessary" strategy?"

Oh, I see, sorry, sorry, you mean the Congress, voted for by all those 'irredeemable' people (dread word!) is obliged to hold hands and chant, "Yes, Sir, no, Sir, three bags full, sir" whilst bending over their desks.

Er, unless it's a Republican president and a Dem Congress, of course!

[The Dark Avenger]

Very oversimplified, old boy. Senate Republicans refusing to do their. Constitutional duty with regards to the Supreme Court is hardly a refusal to "bend over" as you so charmingly put it. Sorry, but your poor salesmanship again ruins your point, whatever it was.

Even St. Maggie of the Shopkeepers would be appalled at your lack of understanding, and if she hadn't been cremated there'd be a great sound like a coffin going at 200 RPM coming out of Westminster Abbey, or wherever it is that Prime Ministers end up getting buried these days, after one of your squalid screeds here.

Hopes this helps, old bean.

[Peter G]

How about a parliament that realizes what a Brexit will actually mean?