scholars of the presidency say that Barack Obama, George W. Bush and their predecessors have added so many powers to the White House toolbox that a President Trump could fulfill many of his promises legally — and virtually unchecked by a Congress that has proven incapable of mustering much pushback for decades.
It’s nice to see the Post say something positive about checks and balances. Of course, if Mrs. Clinton wins in November, I expect the paper will return to bemoaning Congressional obstructionism and gridlock.
Just copy and replace “Trump” and it could be one of those strong executives calling it a benefit straight-faced.
Preach!
That should convince you there is more to check and balance than just the failure to fulfill responsibilities.
Clinton will have even stronger opposition in congress and will thus increase executive power even more, except I suspect she’ll be even better at it than Obama was.
There is also a good chance that she will be successful in converting tens of millions of non-citizens living withing our borders into citizens which will drastically reduce the likelihood of any conservatives/libertarians winning the presidency after this.
Given that Obama’s fiat amnesty lost in a 4-4 tie, sure. I expect Mrs. Clinton will, over eight years, get to appoint enough justices to get a solid 6-3 majority that will simply take cases from the circuit on a purely partisan level — if they agree with the lower court, they will let it stand, if they disagree, they will accept the case and overturn. Simple as that, and the Constitution will be even deader than it is today.
I am sure that, in the unlikely event Trump is elected and decides he actually wants to do something as president that would discomfit America’s haughty, incompetent ruling class, Congress, on both sides of the aisle, and with the noisy support of the media, will suddenly become very jealous of its constitutional prerogatives and will rein Trump in, by means of impeachment if necessary.
Of course, Trump won’t be elected, and has no real policy agenda to implement even if he were elected.
My sense is that an unlikely Trump win is really something of a wild card. Surely there are those in both houses who, if had the chance, would play ball with Trump, but in the current balance-of-power cannot signal so in the slightest way. A preference cascade could reveal a new divide.
In the extremely unlikely event of Trump winning, I think the most likely course events would be either: (1) Trump resigns after a short period in office; or (2) Trump stays in office, but, following the path of least resistance, forms a de facto alliance with the Democrats, the establishment Republicans and the media, abandoning those of his supporters who were foolish enough to believe that he was serious about anything. Either of these scenarios is consistent with Trump’s lack of any interest in governing and lack of any genuine agenda beyond self-promotion.
Given this view, that a Trump win will strengthen checks and balances on presidential power and a Clinton win will weaken them, that seems a strong reason to prefer a Trump win over a Clinton win and vote and advocate accordingly. Also, which side is currently more willing to compromise and which side should be pressured to a more middle ground position?
I understand Kling has valid reasons for disliking both Trump/Hillary, but it seems there are strong strategic reasons to care for one side winning vs the other.
He says temporary benefits of the candidacy, as in, at least WaPo has to think about the downsides of the unitary executive for a minute.
For over 20 years now, since the original Gingrich / Clinton budget fight that led to the government shutdown, and to the latest round of ‘sequestration’, the obvious conclusion is that when push comes to shove over a big issue, a Republican congress is no match for a Democratic president with the media wind at his back when it comes to exercising the legislature’s theoretical power of the purse. Indeed, this last go round, it was his republican colleagues who were most upset with senator Cruz because they knew from the beginning that it was a no-win fight and, aside from his TrueCon PR boost with the base for his coming presidential run, the rest of them would emerge worse for the battle and they would inevitably surrender anyway.
The effective neutralization of this nuclear option (at least for this particular political setup) has upset the old balance of power, just like missile defense could upset the old Cold War logic. I’m guessing the Democrats are happy with this development, since current trends lead one to expect democratic presidents and narrow majority Republican congresses for a few more elections. At least until the US turns into California writ large and we can enjoy what life will be like under the dynamics of a perpetual, progressive, one party state.
Is the nuclear option really neutralized? I remember those instances fondly. It may just be tactical unforced errors to do it with bad timing and a popular president with rhetorical skills.
Did the Democrats ever try anything to block GW Bush stronger than extra-strength whining? Maybe they were panty waists or maybe they are more skilled and cohesive in knowing the timing was never right with a president nursing a national security agenda. The Democrats are supposed to play the role of go-along with what leviathan wants. The Republicans are an opposition party.
Even the purging or chastening of the career go-along panty waists from the Republicans you describe I view as a necessary albeit painful process (and Cruz is an unfortunate standard-bearer, I wish he could dial down the condescending unlikability). I don’t necessarily view devastating losses for the moderate concern troll Republican wing as a net loss, but that is just me. I’m sure they would see it your way.
Think economically. If shutdowns worked, then that incentive would imply that we’d see more of them, and/or see more dramatic results consistent with the agenda of the Congress controlling party. But we don’t.
Ask your average Republican congressman on how they can control both legislative houses but can’t defund planned parenthood and won’t even try in earnest – a relatively trivial amount of money and something a large majority of their base wants – even after a scandal.
The answer is that it’s a game of chicken in which congress is riding a skateboard and the president is rolling in an Abrams. The president will just veto the whole budget and call the Republicans’ bluff, knowing that they will quickly swerve and fold their hand, because they can’t withstand the unrelenting media onslaught for long.
Exactly. In the fights under both Clinton and Obama, it was the Dem president who actually shut down the government, but it was the Republican Congress that was blamed. Of course, most of the media explained it to the public this way.
The Democrats in Congress are pulling the same stunt again, voting down funding for Zika research because the bill doesn’t include funding for their holy of holies, Planned Parenthood. They have figured out that the correlation of forces favors them, so they are free to cater to the most extreme parts of their base and call the other side “extremists” for opposing them.
BS. Everyone knows a majority is 218 + 60 + 1 or 290 + 67 + 0. Everything else is posturing, and posers are always blamed.
The short of it is constitutional majorities are hard and nothing can substitute for not having one. Republicans need to put up or shut up and since they are incapable of the former, they need to do the latter.
What exactly is the B.S. you’re calling out (in your usual elegant fashion)? Handle and I agree that the Republicans in Congress are not strong enough to beat a Democrat president in a shut-down fight, and that’s why most congressional Republicans were so furious at Cruz for setting up another one of these losing showdowns. The fact remains that it is the leftist president who shuts down the government in these scenarios by vetoing duly passed funding bills.
The President has his majority. Where is congresses? Republicans do have options, 1) they can win an unassailable majority, 2) they can persuade enough of the the other party to join them, or 3) they can make a bargain acceptable to both sides. Majorities have to rule quite differently from the opposition and Republicans have shown no capability or even interest in doing so and if not willing to do so will remain the minority opposition, which I don’t blame them for as majorities are thankless tasks. Bills aren’t passed until signed or overridden.
Again, I don’t know what you’re arguing about. The president, by the way, does not have a majority in Congress. The congressional majority has no more obligation to defer to a president of the opposing party than the president has to defer to the congressional majority. Each side should be willing to make reasonable compromises. I think it’s pretty clear which side is willing to do this – really, is giving away the store to the other side on most important issues – and which side caters to its nasty ideological cranks, of which its current leader is and his designated successor are two prime examples.
How ’bout the permanent benefit of a Trump Presidency?