So
this is how liberty dies -- with a rambling, incoherent monologue. President Trump’s bizarre -- and, to be brutally honest, frightening -- Friday morning appearance in the Rose Garden of the White House to announce that he’s invoking extreme presidential powers
to declare a “national emergency” and build border wall that Congress refused to authorize was, in many ways, that moment that Trump’s harshest critics warned about after his shock election as our 45th president.
And yet it was striking that when Trump’s dictator move finally came, there was a lot more banality than evil. After all, our general experience in conceptualizing an authoritarian power grab comes from the History Channel and grainy newsreels of 1930s’ autocrats thumping their chests. This was something else -- in every sense of the phrase.
The import of what Trump was actually doing -- triggering one of the
most significant constitutional crises in American history -- was buried in the alarming incoherence of the delivery. Instead of making the case for his bogus “national emergency," the
short-fingered-vulgarian-in-chief presented an urgent argument for the 25th Amendment, the procedure for removing a president who is unwell.
...
Indeed, the unbearable fakeness of Trump’s national emergency has led to overconfidence that it will be reversed -- either by Congress (although that would require some profiles-in-courage type stuff from GOP representatives that we haven’t seen in decades) or the Supreme Court (although Mitch McConnell and Trump have tipped that scale to the right). I have no such confidence.
Trump’s autocracy play didn’t come out of nowhere. Like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water, we’ve been soaking in the hot tub time machine of an increasingly imperial presidency for at least three-quarters of a century, and Congress, the courts and, yes, the voters -- us -- have been OK with every dial turn of the stove. That’s created a legal momentum that will make Trump hard to stop.
...
In other words, the problem of electing a dangerous demagogue like Donald Trump has been compounded by the imperial blueprint that we drafted for him. In the coming months, Congress will hold hearings on keeping Trump’s team accountable, and may even initiate impeachment -- but that’s not enough. Our lawmakers need to try again, as they did in the 1970s, to draft new legislation to make sure that an American president can’t bomb people all over the world or spend our tax dollars without the express approval of the people’s elected representatives. For example, we need a “national emergency” law that will make it not only not so easy for the president to declare one, but virtually impossible.
But that won’t happen unless we, the people, get behind it. That means actually caring about the process and the Constitution -- even when it’s our own political party and a president that we like who’s committing the abuses. Sure, the next Democratic president could -- if Trump gets away with this -- declare a national emergency to attack climate change or gun violence. But I don’t want to ratify that kind of authoritarian America, and neither should you, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican.
It’s remarkable how prescient
Arthur Schlesinger’s words were for the current crisis. He wrote: “A constitutional Presidency, as the great Presidents had shown, could be very strong Presidency indeed. But what kept a strong President constitutional, in addition to checks and balances incorporated within his own breast, was the vigilance of the nation. Neither impeachment nor repentance would make much difference if the people themselves had come to an unconscious acceptance of the imperial Presidency.”