The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Gordon L. Weil formerly wrote for the Washington Post and other newspapers, served on the U.S. Senate and EU staffs, headed Maine state agencies and was a Harpswell selectman.
What does Donald Trump want to do with the presidency?
He makes his intentions clear, though less clear is whether he can turn his plans into reality. Kamala Harris describes him as “unserious,” but cautions that voters ought to consider as “serious” the risks of his presidency.
Trump favors a strong presidency, enjoying powers he can exercise with little or no control by Congress and with the expected support of his Supreme Court majority. His next term, if he gets it, could look a lot like authoritarian government.
One indicator is his obvious affinity for leaders who bear the title of president, but who exercise strong or total control of their national governments. He almost fraternally refers to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping and North Korea’s Kim Jon Un. In fact, he likes their style and their complete freedom of action.
The presidential system of government places elected presidents, serving fixed terms, at the head of the executive branch alongside legislative bodies that cannot readily remove them, but can limit their powers. In parliamentary systems, the legislative bodies control and can remove the top executive, usually the prime minister.
In the U.S. system, the checks on a president are a key element of democracy. The contrast between democratic balance and the authoritarian rule of false presidents is obvious.
Independent ranking systems are surely not absolutely correct, but they offer strong signals that prove the point. Britain’s Economist Intelligence Unit ranks countries by their degree of democracy. Among the counties ranked as being “full democracy,” almost all in this category have parliamentary systems.
The U.S. presidential system is rated in the “flawed democracy” group, which also includes India, Poland and Hungary. America gets a high rating for “electoral process,” but a weak rating for “functioning of government.” There’s also an “authoritarian” group, which includes Russia, China and North Korea, operating as one-party states.
Trump plans to use his governmental powers to pursue the political enemies he calls “vermin,” expel millions of migrants, and deploy the military to carry out his policies. Sounds like an autocrat.
His extreme departure from national norms leads conservative Republicans, who may like his policies on the economy and immigration, to endorse Harris with whom they may disagree on the issues. She is simply safer.
In the White House, Trump would be likely to do whatever pleases the right-wing constituency that put him in office. Although he honestly reports that he has not read the 887-page Project 2025 blueprint, he is likely to follow its right-wing manifesto. He has little of his own policy, but depends heavily on outside, conservative advocates.
Under its terms, the Justice Department and the FBI would be bought firmly under his control. The Education Department would be abolished, and the Federal Reserve brought under greater political control. No agency would be missed.
Trump would be able to take control of the government. Though the president is supposed to be constrained by Congress, it has failed to do its job. It delegates much of its power to executive agencies. The Senate is often unable to act, thanks to its rules allowing decisions to be blocked by a minority of senators.
The Supreme Court’s July decision, aptly named Trump v. United States, gave the president almost complete immunity from legal scrutiny for all but his most personal actions. And who gets to decide if his actions are presidential or personal? The Supreme Court, now dominated by his allies.
This decision does more for placing the presidency above Congress and the states than any other event in American history. It could easily mean that limits no longer exist on a president using the military for domestic, political purposes.
Congress, because it is ineffective except in doling out benefits and increasing the debt, and the court, because it has become so obviously partisan, have become quite unpopular. The unfavorable rating of Congress has reached 76 percent, and it is 51 percent for the Supreme Court.
The remaining option for controlling presidential excess is impeachment and conviction. But impeachment has become mere political routine, and conviction continues to be impossible and ineffective.
Trump covets unlimited power, which no president of either party is meant to have. The pathway to unchecked presidential power has been paved by the Supreme Court’s decision. The evidence is that it intended to achieve this result before the election. That leaves the decision to the voters.
The court’s Roe v. Wade decision on abortion established policy in the absence of congressional action. Trump v. U.S. did so as well. As Roe shows, court decisions can be reversed. Congress can remove the court’s jurisdiction, but seldom does. Presidents can reshape the court by their appointments.
A political movement pushed the reversal of Roe v. Wade. A similar effort should now demand the reversal of Trump v. U.S.
