It turns out that the Republic is alive and well.
The first quarter of 2017 has brought a pleasant surprise: in vivid contrast to prognostications of doom and gloom from the various socio-political elites vanquished in Donald Trump’s extraordinary victory, it appears that the much feared, withering of American democratic institutions has been grossly exaggerated. God loves a true, if rambunctious, democracy.
Not so long ago, much of the world went through a winter of discontent: Trump conjured up an apocalyptic vision of the United States as a contemporary Roman Empire in decline, gripped by vice, crime, lassitude and decadence. Like Cincinnatus, he would lay down his plowshare (or rather, his business), and lead the “forgotten” peasants in a popular uprising and restore the nation to glory. He declared “I alone can fix it” and “I am your voice,” classic demagogic tropes. So unabashed was his identification with strongman-type language and swagger, he gave the distinct impression that, if given his druthers, one wonders if his idea of an ideal dinner companions at Mar-a-Largo would include Vladimir Putin, Reycip Tayyip Erdogan, Rodrigo Duterte and Alexander Lukashenko.
This is a man who celebrates himself as a dynamic winner of incomparable abilities. In his estimation, all those governors and legislators who ran against him in the primaries, were, like Barack Obama, losers and failures.
Aside from the development of his narcissism, nothing in Donald Trump's life experience or temperament has adequately prepared him to actually function as president of the United States. That, in and of itself, is not necessarily an exclusive indictment: iun fact, no one can ever be adequately prepared for such an immensely complicated role. The sheer complexity of being president can only be somewhat mitigated by the essential qualities of the person themselves -- personal base experience, emotional maturity, and developmental history.
That Trump has unique challenges embodied in his personality was evidenced in the many issues which became evident both during the presidential campaign, its subsequent transition, and upon his inauguration. Throughout the entirety of this cycle he offered “alternative facts,” which at best were unverifiable, even bordering on distortions about everything from the size of the crowd at the inauguration to the claim that the recent election was marred by massive voter fraud.
The most remarkable thing about the Trump presidency may be our expectation that he would be any different from the person he was before and after his electoral victory.
Trump first demonstrated his penchant for distortive bombast as a young man when he bragged about his accomplishments before he actually had any. Despite four corporate bankruptcies, each involving complex enterprises that required real executive skills, Trump kept insisting he was a great business leader. Given that part of his role was creating, marketing and maintaining his brand by staying in the public consciousness he was, within that context, indeed successful.
He was also a successful entrepreneur who led family-held companies that he could direct like a monarch. He was THE BOSS and anyone who disagreed with him knew where to find the door., an image which he both relished and capitalized on this with ‘The Apprentice,’ where his catchphrase, “You’re fired!” encapsulated his power over lesser mortals.
Having cut through his Republican primary opponents and Hillary Clinton like a proverbial hot knife through butter, who would now prevent him from trampling over a Washington grown so weak and decadent? A Washington, moreover, that had declined markedly in public esteem, as confidence in our traditional institutions fell to new lows.
The Paramount Leader cometh, it was feared. How could he be slowed, much less stopped?
Well, as Shakespeare (that wily creator of so many English language clichés) wrote, the fault lay “not in our stars,” but, in this case, with El Presidente himself. CEOs, especially CEO founders, can act like tin-pot dictators – Steve Jobs, for example, was one – a POTUS, however, cannot. Unlike a Board of Directors, who can be side-lined, side-stepped or be nothing but a rubberstamping amen corner, the Founding Fathers proved to be geniuses in their creation of the Constitution and its supporting institutions.
His first lesson came early.
Via executive fiat Trump loudly flourished not one but two immigration ban bills, then was stopped dead cold by the courts. Whatever the actual merits of the policy itself (debatable, as evidence suggests most terrorist attacks originate from home-grown or “radicalized,” indoctrinated or misled citizens as opposed to external infiltrators), or the constitutional reasoning of the courts (debatable), the fact remains: The President proposed and the courts disposed.
One would have expected some sort of fire and brimstone response from Trump. His pushback against the rulings? In stark contrast to his usual early morning tweet storms there were only a plaintive message or two complaining about the judges being either political or endangering the public. Even his own Supreme Court nominee, John Gorsuch, commented on the President’s rhetoric and conduct as “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” Speaking of Judge Gorsuch, his was a canny selection that frankly flatfooted the Democrats, but the relatively smooth nature of his unveiling was quickly lost in the ongoing organizational (or disorganizational) chaos to come.
Beyond the judiciary, Trump also found his aspirations checked by the states. The first immigration challenge was brought by the attorneys general of two states (Washington and Minnesota) picking up on a trend begun during the Obama years, when this rank of public officials, elected in their own right, banded together to kill the 44th president’s immigration and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overreach. So, federalism is very much alive.
Trump was correct about one thing, both during the campaign and thereafter. As Richard Nixon found out, the media can function as the opposition. While the Democratic party reeled and attempted to regroup from defeat, much of the liberal press rallied, on occasion indulging in appalling overkill in their zealousness to excoriate the administration for the effrontery of challenging the left wing elites that had come to so self-indulgently dominate what passes in America as political discourse. Though it can, on occasion, be embarrassing to peruse newspaper front pages or watch the major news channels, peppered as they are with anti-Trump editorializing masquerading as news, the new White House team did not give them little material to work with.
If one were to, however, take a more balanced, nonpartisan view, better these examples of lack of objectivity than a press acquiescing on bended knee to an administration’s scripted talking points, pre-selected questions and manufactured consent. Every true democracy needs an opposition press. Once again, the US has proven that it has one.
The final concentration of opposition to Trump’s attempt at legislative blitzkrieg came from, on the surface, the most surprising source as the Republican-controlled House and Senate put up epic resistance to a Republican administration’s vague attempt at health care reform. Congress is, and will not be, a rubber stamp, something every president has learned, at their peril.
It was no surprise then that Trump defaulted to strong-arm Representatives into passing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) repeal, and to replace it with hasty, cobbled-together legislation. Vote for the bill or pay the electoral price and be ousted in a primary challenge by furious Trumptistas, was the presidential message. After all, this threat was successfully carried out by the Tea Party against hapless GOP Congressmen seen as sherry-drinking vegans too moderate for their red meat tastes.
The challenge with that approach was that the most vocal faction of anti-repeal and replace GOP Congressmen were the so-called Freedom Caucus, notoriously raucous rebels whose ranks are entirely filled with primary challengers who’d already dethroned predecessors perceived as less than doctrinaire conservatives, and were unlikely to be opposed by the base who voted for Trump. Moreover, their vocal denunciations provided backbone to the (admittedly) smaller group of GOP moderates whose constituents had actually benefitted from Obamacare, and thus feared retribution should they dismantle the beneficial clauses. This unlikely collation made it numerically impossible for Republicans to put together a majority even in a House where they hold 247 of 435 seats.
Furthermore, unlike his previous experience, Trump cannot fire anyone in Congress.
Indeed, only the voters can fire a member of the House of Representatives (crimes and misdemeanours aside). Additionally, most members of Congress tend to hold their positions longer than presidents, who, unlike them, has a term limit. Simply put, canny lawmakers with good local machines can outlast Donald Trump. Furthermore, given a current approval rating of 37% (the lowest among modern presidents at this point in their respective first terms), his ability to direct furore at rebels is, at best, limited.
This situation showed that Trump lacks an understanding of how the legislative system actually works and probably ignored those around him who do. Second, he lacks a leadership style suited to dealing with hundreds of members of Congress who are each powerful political figures in their own districts. Finally, and most importantly, we can see that he does not possess the temperament of presidents like Johnson, Reagan and Clinton who respected the process and loved (or came to love) it.
It should have been a slam dunk for the President. For seven years, GOP candidates have pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which expanded Medicaid and created subsidized, state-based exchanges to expand health insurance coverage to 20 million Americans, decrying the taxes and government mandates it enacted. Every Republican running for office from local dogcatcher to US Senate
Yet the party never coalesced around a consensus alternative to the law, and the scramble to develop one after Trump’s election revealed some of the reasons: Republicans were loath to repeal popular ACA provisions such as a requirement that insurers cover those with pre-existing conditions and dependents up to age 26 but wanted to repeal the taxes and the individual mandate to have insurance that helped make those provisions possible. . Perhaps it was the part of the bill that would push 24 million of them off the health insurance rolls that they didn't like. Or maybe it was the part of the law that eliminated all those coverage requirements for policies including pregnancy care, drug benefits and mental health coverage.
The policy difficulties were amplified by an ideological cleavage within the House GOP. Conservative hard-liners chafed that the Ryan-drafted bill left too much of the ACA in place and enshrined a federal role in health insurance markets, while moderates feared that cuts to tax subsidies and Medicaid would leave their constituents uncovered and their states with gaping budget gaps.
The final insult may have come hours before the scheduled vote on the repeal and replace bill as the Daily Beast website reported that, according to officials in the administration who spoke on condition of anonymity, Trump's top adviser, Steve Bannon, wanted him to make a list of his House GOP enemies so they might be punished, a tactic well in keeping with his scorched-earth approach, but hardly scary to men and women used to defying Trump’s presidential predecessor. As determined as Bannon and his master are at tearing down the old Washington, the capital city does have ways of fighting back.
When it became apparent that this corporate-style intimidation had failed, Ryan made a call to Trump that the votes just weren’t there and the President pulled the plug. Trump didn’t say, “Let’s get everyone in the room, roll up our sleeves and make it clear that we’ll go at it as long as it takes. In addition, I’ll get out in front of the press and let the American people know we promised them repeal and replace and come what may, that’s what we’ll deliver.” Bill Clinton passed his first package of tax raises and social program cuts with one vote to spare (with the Democrats in charge of the House!); Barack Obama managed to get the Affordable Health Care Act through by 219 votes to 212.
The decision to pull the bill leaves Obama’s chief domestic achievement in place (for the moment) and raises questions about the GOP’s ability to advance other high-stakes priorities, including tax reform and the budget.
It is historically important for a nascent presidency to pass at least one significant piece of legislation as soon as possible, in order for the administration to build credibility and momentum. By slamming on the brakes and cancelling the showdown vote, President Trump has been left humiliated and diminished. This now opens the door for the congressional GOP members in the House and Senate to openly defy his writ. As for the public, they are now left to wonder, what kind of leader did they elect who cannot even pass legislation while his party holds the majority in all branches of government (the executive, legislative and judicial)? Trump’s image as a skilled dealmaker willing to strike compromises to push his agenda forward has been dealt a severe blow.
It’s not only the President whose authority has been tarnished by this debacle. Like his predecessor, John Boehner, Speaker Paul Ryan -- a former vice presidential nominee and one of the party’s likely candidates for president himself -- has received the kind of setback that will cast doubts on his ability to master a majority of his caucus for other upcoming big votes.
What happens next? If past is prologue, Trump will blame everyone but himself. Ryan should come in for a heap of recrimination, mostly from administration figures speaking to reporters under cover of anonymity.
Despite his protestations to the contrary -- Trump will likely try again. So too will Ryan, as he must salvage enough of a successful legislative record to form the foundation for a credible presidential run someday. The trouble is that Congress has demonstrated that Trump's usual way of leading through intimidation won't work. And he hasn't yet shown that he knows another way.
There is still time – he was four more years, and we do know for certain is that Donald Trump is unpredictable. Will he reach across the aisle and cobble together enough of a coalition between the Republicans and the Democrats to change, if not fully repeal, Obamacare? Or will he listen to Bannon, and distract the electorate with a conflated international crisis, of which there are so many potentially to choose from?
At this writing, in this moment, anything like that is pure speculation, the substance of punditry.
What we do know for certain, is that taken together, the actions of the judiciary, the states and the legislative wing of government leaves us encouraged that the checks and balances of institutional resistance to a potentially threatening executive remain in place and workable. Long may they remain so.
The genius of American democracy and governance never lay in efficiency or lack of rancour. It was for Messrs Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison and others to understand that the best bulwark against tyranny is not virtue -- virtue helps, but should never be relied upon, as we are flawed creations -- but ambition counteracting ambition, faction counteracting faction.
The Republic endures.