Douthat's last line nails it in describing the current GOP Senate & POTUS ---
"A clownish interlude in the republic’s decline, not the Rubicon itself."
15
Obama's Caesarism was in response to Latino youths calling him a liar when he said his hands were tied on the issue of legalizing illegal immigrants. Never mind that we the people are governed by the will of the people and not the demands of a mob … or a gang. So, be patient, Beto is just around the corner. He will open the gate for your Trojan Horse.
3
Shorter Ross Douthat:
No matter what corrupt, tyrannical, harmful act Donald Trump commits, Barack Obama did worse.
37
Ross Douthat engages in another serial Conservative tactic, utilizing false equivalency to somehow disingenuously equate Barack Obama , with the unparalleled incompetence, dysfunction, and seminal corruption of the Donald Trump presidency. Whether the result of James Comey, Hillary Clinton's arrogance, Russian interference, ratings driven, news media false equivalency, or the susceptibility of a majority of white American voters to demagogic appeals, the Trump presidency will be remembered, along with Richard Nixon's, as the worst American history. The chief enabler of this political holocaust, Mitch McConnell, will be convicted of aiding and abetting in the unforgiving docket of history.
52
I never thought I'd see Ross Douthat resort to "But, but, Obama!" like so many Facebook commenters. Perhaps that's all that's left to say?
22
Trump is a national emergency.
33
More boilerplate whataboutism from Mr. Douthat. Obama had to deal with Republicans legislating, or not legislating, in bad faith. Trump is stealing money from the government to appear strong for his idiot masses. Not two cases of the same thing.
53
The headline from here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/obama-executive-orders/
"Obama issued fewer executive orders on average than any president since Cleveland"
Ross, try harder...I want to respect your work.
30
FALSE EQUIVALENCY - FALSE EQUIVALENCY - FALSE EQUIVALENCY. Seriously, Ross, put that book down and get out among the “folks”. Don’t just hang around with Michelle and David on Thursdays, have a drink with Maureen and Frank - and maybe a laugh or two - ‘cause, ya’ never know, when “it’s” gone from power in 2020 you might need a shoulder to cry on. I’m jus’ sayin’ . . . .
22
The constant false equivalency offered by conservative columnists is nauseating.
38
You are such a hypocrite. McConnell said oppose him for everything. House republicans opposed to him even if Obama walked on water.
Your republican party is the most immoral party of our history. House republicans repealed Obama care hundreds of times. I was screaming on tv, "ok republicans repeal obama care and what is your solution to health care". NOTHING. Remember Trump said his health care would be cheaper and cover everybody. You should rebel against all these things instead of Obama's executive actions.
Obama was eager to find a solution to the problems we have faced. He wanted to do Grand Bargain and republicans came never half way.
33
Here are two articles suggesting Trump might prevail with the SCOTUS with its record of sometimes deferring to the POTUS on "national" security.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shutdown-challenges-legal/legal-challenges-to-trump-emergency-declaration-face-uphill-battle-idUSKCN1Q500D
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/15/democrats-will-fight-trumps-national-emergency-with-this-obscure-year-old-legal-precedent/?utm_term=.1f55fbcad4d0
Once again, we go back to a Republican led party by Mitch McConnell. When President Obama tried to do forward, beneficial things, McConnell would not allow it. Now, this “idiot” president wants to harmful, negative things and McConnell backs it!
What in the name of sense has happened to the Republicans.
Perhaps this nation, the once great Republic for which we stand, needs to come to near extinction before we wake up. Or perhaps we need to go the way of the DoDo. We would deserve it for our stupidity!
24
So, Trump is a limp Dictator. We ALL knew that. Stop with your patented version of “ whataboutism “ and comparisons with President Obama. It just makes you look desperate and, frankly, Cheap. Just saying.
34
It is only in mind of Douthat, Lowery, and climate change deniers who back Mitch McConnell and Republican Party that erection of a wall across southern border is a national emergency compared to many domestic challenges that US faces including the catastrophic consequences of the climate change that US and all World is facing now and in coming decades. Mr. Douthat argument are becoming more and more delusional.
16
Ah Ross, still making lemonade, I see.
13
Trump and his incompetent administration’s imperial power grab should be known as the “Coup Klutz Clan.”
20
Tut tut Mr. Douthat you think you can sell us this? Obama bad, Trump just foolish? We all read the news here, and if Trump is just a fool he is one of the most dangerous fools the world has ever seen.
39
Okay.....so we're saved by Trump's incompetence and stupidity. So very reassuring.
16
Right -- Obama was a monstrous proto-fascist and Trump is returning us to our senses, albeit inadvertently.
That's lucky.
18
Here's why I think it may set precedent: most of the policy priorities of Democrats right now are extremely popular with voters. We (on average) want Medicaid for all and the Green New Deal. Trump's move on the wall, if he gets away with it, will give Democrats perfect cover to do popular things.
8
Essentially, Ross is right -- although he overstates his case. A Trump Imperial strategy? Maybe that's the way he sees himself, but he has no strategy except bleating tropes. It's not power or policy, it's another applause line.
The term "emergency" fits beautifully into the meme "invasion" which he has bleated for almost 3 years. This is rabble-rousing propaganda, Wizard of Oz stuff. So is the very idea of a 'wall'-- not 10 miles will ever be built. His cheerleaders will wave their pompoms.Treating Donald as anything more than a bag of noisy rattles is too dignifying.
6
So basically, we as a country, need to extensively curtail presidential power. We should demand it from Congress now and in the future.
Otherwise, please stop comparing any former President with the Liar-in-chief.
12
Beyond all what was said: I listened to the press conference and thought that Trump is either suffering from dementia, or is really REALLY clueless. The fact that the leader of the free world cannot speak coherently on any subject is more alarming than anything else. His brain is a scrambled egg.
29
I am little dumbfounded by the idea that Barack Obama was engaging in Ceasarism to defend children who were brought to the United States as babies or toddlers from being cruelly deported by racist Republican legislators. Also, I assume Obama's expanded use of executive power to protect wilderness areas was other example of his dictatorial predilections? I just don't buy this argument.
Trump's declaration of a national emergency has more in common with Hitler or other real dictators than Barack Obama. Clearly, however, the president's ability to declare national emergencies by fiat, with almost no constitutional checks on his powers, is indeed a disturbing legacy of the Cold War. We need to completely rewrite the laws governing executive declarations of national emergencies. In the meantime, don't put Obama in the same category as Trump. Trump is a fascist, and Obama was clearly not.
29
"And in general, serious conservatives are opposing Trump."
Given that "serious" conservatives have zero power and influence over Trump or the GOP, this is pretty much irrelevant.
10
As I have been commenting at the “Times”, “The Post” and many other sites for years (as have many others)
Faux-Emperor Trumpius is only a ‘symptom’ of this actual Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE, which is only nominally HQed in, and merely ‘posing’ as, our formerly promising and sometimes progressive country (PKA) America.
“Empire is as Empire does”!
“The U.S. state is a key point of condensation for pressures from dominant groups around the world to resolve problems of global capitalism and to secure the legitimacy of the system overall. In this regard, “U.S.” imperialism refers to the use by transnational elites of the U.S. state apparatus (hard & soft powers) to continue to attempt to expand, defend, and stabilize the global capitalist system. We are witness less to a “U.S.” imperialism per se than to a global capitalist imperialism. We face an EMPIRE OF GLOBAL CAPITAL, headquartered, for evident historical reasons, in Washington.” [Caps added]
Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity, 2014 Robinson, William
Cambridge University Press.
4
Oh, Ross, desperate conservative columnists write desperate things. Obama moved unilaterally for one reason only: Congressional Republicans had one agenda, which they admitted publicly, which was to make Obama (e.g. a liberal, a Democrat, a black man or as one Republican clod put it, a “Halfrican American”) a one-term president, and when that failed, to block his every move, literally refusing to hold nomination hearings on a Supreme Court justice for an entire year.
What did Obama want? Health insurance for people who didn’t have it. What does Trump want? A wall to stop asylum seekers from Central America from entering the United States. Obama made moves because he was forced to, while Trump makes moves because no one will support his out-of-control ignorance and racism.
Comparing both Obama and Trump to Caesar? Sorry, but that’s like comparing apples to orange gummy bears.
18
Real Emergency versus fake emergency.
Acting in the interest of the country versus acting in the interest of the president.
That is the difference between Obama and Trump’s actions.
I don’t know why we even debate this. In the severe lack of congressional action President has the option to govern using executive action. Let the courts determine the constitutionality, if justified. Otherwise, we all can see the implied importance and justification for such actions. And the jury is already in, Obama’s actions were quite justified, Trump’s were (and are) all a sick joke.
12
Ross a huge difference in these two scenarios, Obama versus trump is that Obama faced a Republican controlled congress that Mitch McConnell refused to engage Obama on at any level. Trump has had two years with a Republican controlled congress and Supreme Court and did absolutely nothing about his ridiculous wall. Even now there isn't rock hard Republican support for his political grandstanding and there certainly isn't even a modest amount of support from Democrats. This is just another attempt by trump to try and establish his street creds as a mafia boss, dictator, a king and to distract the media and the people away from his mounting legal problems as a traitor.
8
"A clownish interlude in the republic's decline, not the Rubicon itself" This "clownish" behavior on the part of President Trump, has very serious implications in the short term, not just for the behavior of would be autocrats in the future. Discussing the behavior of past presidents in perhaps abusing executive power will not help to address the crisis now facing this country with a person who because he is mentally emotionally and intellectually severely deficient, has already been doing great damage to the Country with his earlier executive actions against protections of our health and safety, and encouraging greater cultural and economic polarization. Lying in order to cook up an emergency to get his way on a dubious campaign promise based on racial hatred,, rather than seriously recommending necessary immigration policy change, in itself is worthy of strong rebuke, whether it represents a constitutional crisis or not.
4
I put the blame for most of this squarely on Mitch McConnell. Several readers have commented that the "Imperial Presidency" began with Obama and his use of executive orders to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation. Perhaps he was overstepping his authority, or not, but it was a humanitarian response to a humanitarian crisis. McConnell made it his mission to thwart any and all initiatives by President Obama in hopes of a 1 term presidency. He failed, but in his failure he forced Obama to resort to executive order to get anything done.
By contrast, Trump has had both the Senate and House in his party control for the past two years and could have brought his "Wall" initiative forward during that time under more favorable conditions. He waited until the last possible minute to make his demands for his wall and when he didn't get his way, he resorted to executive order. So much easier than pressing for immigration reform, I guess. And, once again, McConnell flips and supports him. Can he be so fearful of Trump and being "primaried" by someone Trump supports in his stead? I think McConnell will go down in history for all the wrong reasons and he deserves being remembered for the villainy he has engendered. Just my humble opinion.
8
Our do-nothing Congress all but invites presidential imperialism. Until congressional prima donnas get over themselves (and their rigid ideologies, as well as the media crackpots that stoke them), and get down to the challenging business of bipartisan compromise, we can expect more Executive Branch power grabs. As Mr. Douthat suggests, if Congress doesn't change its ways, a far more intelligent, competent, savvy and charismatic President than Trump can ever hope to be will eventually come along to ring the Constitution's death knell.
3
"If Obama was abusing his powers, then clearly so is Trump."
But Trump, a Republican POTUS, has (or had) the Republican Party's approval. Obama was opposed simply because he was a Democrat POTUS, sworn by the Republican Senate leader to be limited to a single term.
Equivalencies?
6
Hey Ross, perhaps it's time to write a column about the unconstitutional usurpations of power by Mitch McConnell. In his abdication of his responsibilities to work with a president from the opposing party and to rein in the excesses of one from his own, he is a much bigger threat to our democracy than Trump.
12
“Hypocrisy” thy name is republican op-ed writers supporting Trump.
The op-ed is a nicely written piece to minimize Trump’s transgression of presidential power by assigning the original “Caesarian” sin to Obama. Then with a sleight of hand bringing in Bush’s executive power overreach with the expanded war powers to give the article a cover of unbiased opinion. This sequence deflects the moral and political decrepitude of the current action by triggering a defense on the readers part of the (in)equivalency of Trump and Obama’s action. The article could well have started with GW Bush, or for that matter the Reagan administration with its Iran-contra affair as the original Caesar, if a real point was the continuous expansion of presidential power over history.
6
“...he isn’t even accomplishing any obvious goal (there’s a reason real immigration restrictionists are against this plan) except the personal one of saving a tiny bit of face.”
As Trump indicated in his press conference, this is all about the 2020 election. By declaring this National Emergency, he shows his base he’s “fighting for them.” When it gets bogged down and (hopefully) tossed out in the courts, he can say "I tried, but the courts were against me (us)." He'll turn a clear loss into red meat he can feed to his base, who'll eat it up. It's really up to voters to end this travesty of an administration in 2020.
3
One of many unhealthy psychological behaviors is refusing to accept personal or group responsibility and blaming others for one's or one's group's damaging decisions and/or actions.
Trump's recent executive overreach and complete disregard for the Constitution, Congressional powers, and ethics in declaring a national emergency to fund his expensive, ineffective vanity wall is not Obama's fault. It is Trump's serious miscalculation and misuse of presidential power.
Please Ross, stop acting like Trump's mop-up crew and scrambling to engage in some kind of verbal Republican jiu-jitsu to deflect blame from the culpable Trump, who is irresponsibly misusing and abusing the rarely used option of declaring a "national emergency."
There is nothing Trump needs more than to be held accountable for his bad behavior and to hold himself accountable. What are the odds that will ever happen, especially with the Republican Party acting as Trump's enablers every step of the way?
5
"more dangerous would-be autocrat"
really,I mean really
perfect description of trump
For all of you scolding Ross Douthat for turning a blind eye to President Trump's apparent abuse of the Constitution you are missing the positive side of Douthat's acceptance of the use of power on specious grounds. As a Republican I am well-aware we are on dangerous ground, very dangerous ground for the next two years not because the president might blunder into a crisis due to ignorance and incompetence, we recognize that, but because his truculence and love for bullying will lead him to create crises that could have been avoided. Myopia is bad enough but aggression is unnecessary. Of course we could have been spared all this if 30 years ago some of the tradesmen he stiffed had simply taken him into a dark alley and broken his knees. But now it is up to those of you who find his misuse of the spirit of national emergency powers to do whast those tradesmen did not. Win the Presidency and the Senate with people who appreciate the gift Donald Trump has given them. His refusal to act in the face of Russian subversion of our democratic system is a real national emergency that needs attention. On January 21, 2021, President X should detain Donald Trump, his Cabinet, and all Republicans in Congress until, in Trump's own words, "we can determine what the hell is going on". Fortunately the facilities created to hold asylum-seeking children can quickly be made available as some Republicans may prove innocent, just gullible. Then return the party to Americans and lock up the traitors.
6
"Green New Deal by fiat"
Read this op-ed in today's Times about how climate change legislation needs a steady does of panic:
https://nyti.ms/2V2QLA2
Fear that the progressive left would take advantage of a state of emergency declaration down the road is misplaced -- especially when right wing pundits use "Green" legislation as their eye-rolling example, like it's comparable to building a 1000 mile great wall on our southern border. Talk about a false equivalence. Illegal activity along our southern border is at a new low, steady decline for years; climate change, however, is a real international crisis. A state of emergency SHOULD be declared about climate change. It's just that old people in power don't care cause they will be dead before it disturbs their cozy lives. Young people will see that it's their lives that will be short on fresh water, managing barren crop fields, adjusting for mass migration, dealing with fires, extreme weather, rising water levels. If leaders do not legislate to address these disasters -- already a seasonal, seemingly monthly occurrence -- someone will NEED to declare a state of emergency by kingly fiat -- and it will be the right thing to do, unlike Trump's cartoonish wall idea.
4
Obama took his executive actions reluctantly – not because there was ever any credible doubt of his legal authority, but because they would not have the permanence of legislation. He did so only after seeking and failing to find any good-faith negotiating partner in the Republican-controlled House and Senate. His opponents left him no other way to resolve urgent problems and move the country forward.
Instead of recognizing the limitations of blocking the road, Republicans faulted the President for taking the less attractive, but equally available path. Doing so meant concocting the lie of an “imperial President” acting outside the law.
Republicans avoided facing the real lesson: that they should have worked to craft bipartisan solutions where both sides can claim some win. But if all you want is for your opponent to fail, that’s impossible. Instead, they precluded bipartisanship by following the “Hastert rule” in the House and refused to bring nominations to a vote in the Senate.
Now, even with the tables turned, Republicans cling to the same strategy and find the same failure. Democrats offered several alternative funding plans for border security, and Trump, enabled by the McConnell, refused them all. Now, in direct opposition to Congressional action (not inaction), Trump exercises executive power far more dubiously.
I agree with Douthat that a future president is unlikely to follow this precedent. But his suggestion that Trump is more Sulla than Caesar is cold comfort.
6
Trump’s national emergency resolution doesn't circumvent Congress. Congress can override the declaration by passing a joint resolution. However, Congress doesn't want to override it. The Senate voted to end the shutdown and pass the spending bill only because Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell promise to support the national emergency declaration. The Senate saw a way to give the president what he wants and reopen government at the same time. The only thing the declaration circumvents another government shutdown.
1
This piece gave me a good view especially along with “The Real Problem With Trump’s National Emergency Plan” (in op-ed, by Peter H Schuck). Schuck points out that the self-imposed restriction (my paraphrase) of Congress’s power by Congress should be now in a view of constitutional procedures (my paraphrase again) for not obstructing what needs to be done when truly needed at the magnitude level by the presidents in the future. So, Mr. Trump’s declaration of national emergencies may not be overridden by Congress. Here, Court/Justice has only a subsided and unseepdy power. Douthat looks at the other side. If not restricted, the current declaration of national emergency would or could become potentially a base for the future autocratic presidency. At the core, there has been the same issue of the presidential power and its limit when the national interests and people’s are considered as essential. Presently, that power is questioned by many. However, the present presidency is legal, thus, constitutional unless it is overturned constitutionally during the presidency, or, democratically in the electoral measures. This has been a very familiar argument, but it will continue until resolved fully.
6
The national emergency declaration is not a constitutional crisis because Congress can override it by passing a joint resolution. However, Congress doesn't want to override it. The Senate voted to end the shutdown and pass the spending bill only because Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell promise to support there national emergency declaration. The Senate saw a way to give the president what he wants and reopen government at the same time.
The House could initiate the joint resolution, but it would not pass in the Senate. When the issue goes to court, While House lawyers will point out that Congress doesn't want to override the national emergency declaration.
18
@William Case
Is it true that a joint resolution could overturn the emergency declaration?
If so, I suspect that there are enough maverick R's in the Senate for it to pass with a simple majority. The issue, then, is whether McConnell could keep it from coming to a vote.
12
@Hu McCulloch
Mitch McConnell can not stop it from coming to a vote. If the Congress passes the resolution, the Senate must vote on it with in 18 days. So says the "rules" or the "laws" of the Congress. But we all know how Mitch feels about and treats the "rules".
25
@Hu McCulloch
Yes. It is true that Congress can override the national emergency act with a joint resolution. However, the Senate rejected the House spending bill because it did not fully fund the border fence. This is what cause the shutdown. The Senate agreed to pass revised spending bill that granted only partial funding because the majority leader promise to support a national emergency declaration. So it unlikely the majority of senators would vote to override the declaration. And it would take 60 votes to override, not a simple majority. The Senate's 60-vote rule is what stopped Trump from getting border wall funding when the Republicans controlled the House.
Beside, Trump could veto the resolution bill if it reached his desk.
3
"Trump’s caudillo act is substantially less dangerous than what his predecessors did" Good grief! What Obama did, even if unconstitutional, are just regulations that can easily be reversed in courts. What Trump has done, is permanent damage to our republic and separation of powers. Even if he loses in court, this act has turned us into a banana republic. Other leaders who have subverted democracies by declaring emergencies - Sisi of Egypt, Erdogan of Turkey, Maduro of Venzuela and Indira Gandhi of India. For the last one, the declaration caused her eventual downfall.
181
I would take Mr. Obama's "caesarism" over Trump's egocentric, pompous, self serving delusions any old day. I mean really, how many times do we need to hear about his "women duct taped visions?" As I have said before, all roads lead to McConnell. The real spider in the middle of the web.
213
I can imagine (dream) of our Legislature doing its duty in a way that would not tempt a President to legislate. Thoughtful proposals and bills to directly address the opioid crisis, creative scientific/social acts to confront climate chaos, ingenious moves to heal pernicious polarization, brilliant concepts to make the Pentagon more efficient, hard charging fixes to cyber warfare, insightful actions to support the American work force with healthcare, child care and expansive education... all that and more The President would sign and veto as is his/her power and influence the course of history from the bully pulpit.
Just dreaming.
3
Ross writes, "I just can’t imagine anyone looking at the political train wreck of Trump’s unilateralism and seeing a precedent worth invoking." On the other hand what I can't imagine is anyone looking at the daily disasters of Trump in the White House and not screaming, "Get this guy out of there!"
7
Wow. In Obama's administration it was hyper partisanship and racism that paralyzed Congress and generated the need for Executive actions. The country, after all. needed to be governed. Trump had two years of unified government and his pals on Capital Hill wouldn't build his stupid wall. The same shamelessness that runs through this essay is seized upon and magnified by a flailing, thrashing Trump to excuse lazy and incompetent governance. Sad.
11
"If anything, precisely because his contempt for constitutional limits is so naked and his incompetence so stark, Trump has (modestly, modestly) weakened the imperial presidency by generating somewhat more pushback than his predecessors."
Correct you are, Mr. Douthat, when people follow the laws of logic. Alas, this is not always the case in politics.
Stupid action does not mean that other politicians will learn from past action and new precedents. Sometimes quite the opposite. They operate with a logic from a different dimension. Dumber often follows dumb.
After all, the American people elected, based on an Alice-in Wonderland-logic, the Mad Hatter.
Oops my mistake. Clearly not a Hatter. No use of mercury.
4
Par for the course for Mr Douthat: Wave an admonitory finger at Trump and train most of his poor-quality artillery at Obama.
Is this what passes for reasoned conservatism?
18
Extraordinary. Douthat disrespects both his president and his pope.
As the Trump White House dumpster fire burns brighter, it was inevitable that the men and women of the right expose the real culprit -- Barack Obama.
6
Mr. Douthat is again missing the point. More false comparisons. I just can't see any point in reading his columns in the future.
6
So Ross Douthat’s argument boils down to this: the worse Trump behaves and acts, the better.
Good grief. Does it occur that maybe if you only get three-quarters of a loaf of dictator, this is not good at all? I mean, you shoot for Mussolini and only get Victor Orban, so hooray?
6
There is nothing wrong in breaking or not keeping campaign promises. Take a look at Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in light of his stated comments in campaifn. Perhaps if T knew history he might know this. Then again, a man who is in no danger of losing his base, if he were more secure, would not even think about stepping on this land mine.
2
Did you know that Congress can pass a joint resolution that ends the emergency? Here is a sentence from the bill summary:
"Provides that any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this title shall terminate if (1) Congress terminates the emergency by concurrent resolution; or (2) the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency."
Here's the link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/house-bill/3884
To end the emergency, Congress can act.
3
@SunnyvaleKen--News reports state that House Democrats do plan to introduce and pass a resolution opposing Trump's emergency declaration. They also expect to force a vote in the Senate, and to have enough votes to pass the resolution with a simple majority. However, Trump will veto the resolution, and There will not be enough votes to override the veto. At that point, Democrats bring a legal challenge. Other lawsuits have already been or are about to be filed, one by several landowners who will be forced to turn over their property to the government for the wall. This matter will be in the courts for a while, and no wall will be built during that time.
3
Why is it that the right only ever notices executive actions by Democrats?
Yes, Trump has taken actions declaring a national emergency, but Mr. Douthat, he has had a pretty liberal hand with other executive actions himself. Tariffs? Bears Ears Monument? Unfunding the ACA? Don't blame Obama for this nightmare - blame Congress, which was so plagued with anal-cranial inversion during the Obama presidency that they could not even fund interest payments on national debt.
Congress punted the responsibility to the executive branch, and kept it there through Trump's first midterm - because that way they could shift the blame.
Obama, like other Presidents before him, stretched his power to the point where Congress and the Court halted him. Trump has done the same. Congress just hasn't been doing its job.
The difference is that Trump actually thinks he is king.
6
Only fool would think the GOP senators would fail to support Trump, and that goes for the Supreme Court as well.
Please notice how our esteemed opinionator always assigns complete blame for this Administrations's utter incompetence and ignominy at the feet of Trump? Douthat never includes the many minions, fellow travelers, and co-conspirators throughout the Executive Branch, Republican Party, Congress, the Supreme Cour, Conservative "thinking tanks," and the RightWing Noise Machine. It's clearly a Group Grope, not a one-man band. A big ship with a lot of rats scurrying about. World's worst reality tv show.
9
Ah, the Douthat specialty, false equivalence. Obama was dealing with a gerrymandered republican minority which even in the "wave" elections of 2010 and 2014 still didn't garner a majority, and he was acting to protect productive US residents and to defuse a looming crisis on disruptive deportations that were damaging communities. And his environmental rulings were the same, except in that case the republican opposition was manufactured by the Koch brothers and their fossil fuel allies, since everyone except a few idiots in Oklahoma and Texas believe global warming is real, man-made, and dire. We do occasionally require a president to reflect the will of the people, not the paid-up GOP congressmen, and to try and stave off climate catastrophe. Trumps fiats are the opposite, an end-run AROUND the majority, in this case including many members of his own party. Like Nixon, who for a brief period tried to govern with the votes of 34 senators in mind to stave off impeachment, Trump governs exclusively for republican primary voters...
6
According to Douthat, Trump is too stupid to be dangerous. Is that supposed to help the sane people in America sleep more soundly? It is hardly comforting.
An unhinged president who violates constitutional norms, albeit incompetent, is still very dangerous. He is opening doors that should never have been opened and which may have lasting negative consequences.
There is no equivalence, moral or otherwise between Obama and Trump and to even suggest it is ludicrous.
This declaration of a national emergency, meant to be an end-run around Congress, will come back to haunt the GOP. As they say, payback is a . . .
5
What I find truly amazing is that anyone could listen to that blathering yesterday, to that sing-songey mini opera (la da di da di DAH, la da di da di DAH) and not be frightened out of their skin. This is the leader of what used to be called the Free World? The most powerful position in the world (used to be, pre-Trump)?
The man is not wearing any clothes, people. He's truly not and yet all the Republicans are saying, "Dear Leader, your robes are so magnificent and glorious!".
No one is protecting us. I want someone decent with compassion to grab some power and make our political cowards deal with the most pressing issue of the day.
Our president is not sane. I challenge any political coward to truly watch and listen to that utter nonsense and then do the right thing: get rid of him.
25th Amendment Oh, if only! And now, right now! I'm downright scared of this person. And no one is protecting us!
7
Pundits' critiques of DJT have become an easy reflexive fish-in-the-barrel exercise in impotence, revealing again the futility of language not backed by might.
Also in today's NYTimes: "Pope Defrocks Theodore McCarrick, Ex-Cardinal Accused of Sexual Abuse"
Enquiring (sic) minds really want rather to know how or why RD yet exposes body and soul to the evident traumas and conflicts of the confessional stall.
Blaming imaginary excesses by Obama for Trump's blundering neo-fascism is ludicrous, except in so far as Obama committed the sin of Presiding While Black. The irresistible urge Trumpists have to support Trump despite his manifest incompetence, dishonesty and mendacity has absolutely nothing to do with anything except skin color. Trump knows this and uses every opportunity a politically doomed wall provides him to proclaim his bigotry to his base and pretend it is about national security. Trump cares nothing about national security, just his own job security, which he pathetically thinks he can insure by catering to a shrinking group of ignorant, backward, Fox-brainwashed dupes and professional crackpots like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
4
Gotta love the rationalization here. When a Democrat does it, it's the end of the world. When a Republican does it, it's a bedtime story.
Please.
4
@thomas briggs
And vice-versa.
Would re-read to attempt to figure out what point he is trying to get across. Sort of reminds me of the scene in the movie evolution where Dave Duchovny is passing back the papers to his erstwhile/thick biology class where they were to write about cells. The dolt twins were singled out for their extremely short and vacuous paper with the following content: our uncle lives in a cell, cells are bad. In short, Ross has written a piece, it is bad.
So much anger, Ross, and yet you remain a card-carrying member of his party. No king can rule without enablers. Your president has plenty of them, including you.
5
End Game
Serene in my space observing his gales
Dancing the rumba with Trump off his rails,
Last dance on the deck, our ship’s gonna founder
Our own ship of state, the captain's a bounder,
Two years hence, (mind the date), the fat lady sings
Of your demise and of your underlings;
Drink tea as you exit, your final is final
Or single malt scotch; - a toast to your rival
Who will extract our loathsome disease,
A sad, sorry carcass; get out, if you please.
1
Mr. Douthat seems to continue to take comfort in Trump's obvious idiocy. I guess that's at least something to cling to, but depending on the incompetence of an evil force is of little comfort to me.
The real test -- the "main event"? -- will come in a genuine crisis. That's when Trump and the near-fascists masked as conservatives that support him will make their grab for power.
Perhaps the test will come in the form of a serious terrorist attack, with the country stumbling and paralyzed by fear and desperate for any show of strength.
Will Trump's idiocy save us then?
2
“It is not enough for a president to simply make a power grab. That grab needs to unite his party... it needs to be cloaked in enough piety and deniability to find support from would-be referees.... and finally it needs to be ratified by the other branches of government, if only by their inaction.”
Oh, well good thing we don’t have a president with a 90% approval rating in his own party.
Good thing we don’t have a party with a 30 year history of making naked power grabs while claiming that butter won’t melt in their mouths (impeachment over a sex scandal/lying us into a multi-decade war/declaring presidents of the opposing party illegitimate and foreign born/refusing to give judicial nominees a hearing/buying help from criminal syndicates and hostile foreign powers).
Good thing we don’t have a Supreme Court packed with far-right jokers whose job is to be a rubber stamp for their party’s goals or a Senate that represents a rural minority at the expense of most of the country or a House so gerrymandered that it takes almost a 10% vote margin before control switches to the majority vote getters...
Face it, “naked power grab” is the GOP motto. They actually DO control all branches of the government. Though a minority, they are a zealous, hail-the-leader, highly unified, authoritarian minority that brooks no opposition and thinks God is on their side.
As for the “would-be referees cloaked in piety” - that’s why we have shameless clowns like you, Ross.
3
So Trump isn't dangerous? Mr. Douthat, where have you been these past two years when he
-has ordered Hispanic children into cages with no plans to reunite them with their families;
-has stripped some of our nation's most respected military personnel of their security clearances;
-has had his bigoted Muslim ban supported by a Supreme Court that now toadies to him;
-has mocked persons with disabilities, and families whose children have been murdered, to the cheers of thousands of his adoring fans;
-has done nothing about the skyrocketing hate crimes since he took office -- indeed, he has told us that neo-Nazis and the KKK are some very fine people;
-has beamed while his rabid base screams "Jews will not replace us" at his rallies;
-has been able to appoint a would-be rapist to the Supreme Court and has secured the necessary votes to turn women into nothing but forced birthing vessels;
-has threatened to pull out of NATO, and has publicly kowtowed to Putin in Helsinki, clear evidence that he is a Russian tool;
- has faced absolutely no consequences, despite clear evidence of his crimes, showing that he is literally above the law;
-has declared a national emergency for something that exists only in his mind, and now has a Supreme Court that will toady to his insane whims;
- and, is one deranged tweet from starting a literal nuclear holocaust.
As a woman, and an ethnic and religious minority, Mr. Douthat, I can assure you that Trump is an existential threat to many of us.
4
Jell-O is slightly firmer than any stand you seem to take.
1
I recall Obama's executive actions, but I don't recall any declared emergencies on his part; even though it can easily be argued that climate change in particular is a looming existential threat.
To compare Obama to Trump is like comparing apples to idiots.
4
In what other ambit is deplorable incompetence the raison d’etre for decision making? Any CEO with such disposition would be fired summarily by his board of trustees. We need daily Vietnam Nam era style street protests throughout the country to shake Republicans from their moronic stupor!
3
The majority of the American people are not disillusioned with Presidential leadership in general, they are appalled with having a Malignant Narcissist ad pathological liar as president.
2
He's ignorant; he's corrupt; he's complicit; he's lazy; he's a fraud (and, yes, he's soft and limp).
But his baseless, fear-mongering political power grab is the natural result of his predecessor.
I'm not buying it.
2
This is truly a ludicrous argument. A brazenly authoritarian power grab is nothing to be concerned about because the brazen power-grabber is an incompetent idiot? Does this not make both the power grab and the shrugging of shoulders with which it is being met by a vast majority of the GOP infinitely more alarming? This is akin to saying a three year old taking a car for a joyride is less dangerous because the three year old doesn't know how to drive. Trump is the three year old and he is driving our country off a cliff. Don't even get me started about the comparison with Obama - others here have stated far more eloquently than I the vastly different circumstances under which Obama acted, as well as the moral, ethical, and FACTUAL crises he addressed.
2
I knew some clown conservative would say Trump is Obama's fault. What took Ross so long?
4
I take no comfort from the view that Trump cannot seriously threaten dictatorship because he's stupid and incompetent. It doesn't take much for a President to engineer a REAL national emergency.
2
Yet again, Mr. Douthat tries to lay blame for the disaster that is the Trump presidency at the feet of the Democrats. Ceaseless Fox diatribe and a big, wet kiss from the Republican establishment (who got their tax cuts for the 1%) played no material role. They're simply innocent bystanders.
Mr. Douthat, did you not see Mitch McConnell's endorsement Friday afternoon?? And with it, the endorsement of the entire Republican establishment??
Get real. Your conscience will thank you for it.
4
Good article. But things might be even more simple. Trump could never actually cross the Rubicon because he would be deathly afraid he would get his hair wet.
A comic flaw for him; a sigh of relief for us.
1
With Obama we had a person who would analyze the issue and attempt to find a solution. At times the solution was wrong. And yes, he did resort to unilateral means.
With Trump, we have a person who possibly believes he is larger than life, a savior, and his masses adore him for it.
Trump, along with his buddies Sean and Rush, never failed to insure the masses were aware of Obama's emperor-like actions-unconstitutional they would bray, an impeachable offense others would bleat.
We know that Trump, in his flim-flam con artistry, and braggart ways, wooed the crowds and Fox "News" with his grandiose schemes and promises (most of which have not been kept, but, who is counting) and needed to keep the easily bamboozled crowds happy with the WALL. It was all about the wall.
He created a common enemy-brown people-that cemented his adoring fans to him. The fans became dependent on him to rid us of a scourge.
And Trump needed a distraction, a reason to not look here, look over there as people realize they were conned by the income tax scam.
Thus, the "national emergency" came to fruition to keep the people happy and at bay. And it is working-for the most part. The hate a vitriol toward anyone brown is alarming.
I agree with one pundit concerning this "emergency"-Trump is a moron.
3
Yes, yes. It's (almost) always Obama's fault, isn't it?
6
Ross, if you're caught in one "untruth" it makes all the rest of your column suspect.
President Obama did not use "executive unilateralism" to enact the ACA. It is a United States federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010.
It matters little to me when you lie about your vaunted Roman Catholic Church but it matters greatly when you lump a decent man, Obama, in with the current scurrilous occupant.
Please stop.
3
Mr. Douthat, what you are overlooking about Obama's time in office is that the GOP refused to work with him on anything. The ACA, to which they could have contributed, which was based upon another Republican's plan, was undermined by them. When it came to approving judges this same GOP, which was in love with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, was obstinate. They shut down the government at least once under Obama.
What they proved, beyond a doubt, particularly now with Trump in office, is their basic racism and complete disinterest in working to improve life for ALL Americans, not just the 1% who court them, donate sizable amounts of money to them, and help them write laws favorable to the richest.
Obama's presidency was far from an imperial presidency. His failure was attempting to work with the GOP in any way. The GOPs failure comes in representing those who pay their salaries, who elect them, and who make up the bulk of people in this country; the people who sweep the floors, clean the toilets, teach our children, drive our taxis, care for our elderly, police the neighborhoods, etc.
4
Caudillo, a Spanish word meaning a leader, military or political, trying to impose his/her will in the name of his/her people; this requires usually basic competence and the natural risk of perishing in trying to change things to his liking. Trump cannot be a 'caudillo', he is too dumb for that; but he has a huge ego that, coupled with how little he knows (in spite of the readily information out there...for the taking), makes him think he knows more than 'the generals', a dangerous proposition. Public service is brand new to this vulgar bully, who likely thinks it's part of his shady real estate business, hence, his abuse of power 'my way or the highway'. And now, as he cries wolf, 'the wolf is coming' (but nowhere to be seen), he is creating a nonexistent crisis...by declaring an emergency only existing in his little brain, where reality is what he says it is (more fiction that fact). Aside from the complicity of McConnell, that makes Trump's viability possible, his demagoguery remains the gospel truth for a credulous 'base' that refuses to think for themselves. And, unless we are willing to wake up, and become responsible, and restore our trust in democratic institutions, we shall have no right to complain.
98
So Obama's conduct is at the root of Trump's, eh? Trump, who made his political reputation telling the lie that Obama wasn't even an American, Trump, the rationale of whose Presidency has been to overturn or wreck every achievement of Obama, Trump, the humorless bully whose character couldn't possibly be in starker contrast to Obama's cool, humane, easy wit, is actually modeling his quest for authoritarianism after Obama. Ok.
This thesis does two things for Douthat. It allows him to settle into his favored, comfortable, "both sides do it" frame. And, therefore, it allows him to give a pass to the Republican congressional caucus, which in effect declared Obama's Presidency illegitimate, using every trick in the book, and a few that aren't in the book (Merrick Garland) to block Obama in the appropriate use of Presidential powers.
Poor Douthat is pursuing a vain task here. He's throwing Trump under the bus in an effort to save the Republican party from going down with Trump. But the Party has sold its soul to Trump. Just ask Mitch McConnell.
5
Just a reminder there Father Douthat: Obama had to use executive orders because two words Mitch McConnell, obstructionist, corporatist and obvious racist.
Don’t for a minute think the next Republican President will be overjoyed to declare an emergency like: no more unions their communist, no more contraception cause God, he 14th Amendment is about corporate personhood not racial equality and on and on.
You are being disengenuous and katty. Not good if you wish to be taken seriously.
5
Despite your mischaracterization of DACA (what is it about the word "deferred" the Right doesn't understand?), many of us loyal progressives moaned at BHO's imperial use of the executive office. Many of us had been warning about it since the legislative branch began ceding more and more of its responsibility to the executive branch in the 1980s, after a short interval of relative normalcy post-Nixon.
As I recall, both Clinton and Obama campaigned, in part, on rolling back the executive over reach, yet both embraced and expanded it in the era of absolutist obstinance created by the new Know Nothings, which began in earnest in 1994.
This is not an excuse; it's an observation. It's pretty much your party which built what we have today, and they show no signs of wanting anything other than a plain old Right Wing autocracy, complete with sham elections. My belief is they will finally get it and you'll either remain in opposition or hop on board, hopefully the former.
I see this declaration not as a imperialism by Trump but, rather, as a machination by McConnell (as was the shut down). Now that it's been put in the basket, the court battles will take us past the 2020 elections and, while that's happening, Trump can go on lying about the big, beautiful wall he's building while the rest of them can yell about how Democrats want "socialism", "open borders", "crime", "rapists", and all those scary things they love to invoke.
It's all so puerile, but it works for them.
6
Well, talk about a Silver Lining Playbook! While we watch Trump trash climate control, dis our Allies, reneg on international committments, shut down government, and buffoonishly behave in ways that can’t be readily explained, we nevertheless have this assurance from Douthat that things really aren’t so bad. Wow!
4
" Text without context is pretext" Reverend Jesse L Jackson, Sr.
Invocation of Julius Caesar and the Rubicon is historically and politically delusional and ludicrous. Rome was a republic that chose empire. America was a colony that chose a republic and became a socioeconomic political diplomatic military enpire.
The imperial Presidency was born under Franklin Delano Roosevelt and nurtured under Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson. The proper historical reference is America and the correct river is the Potomac.
The gravest threat to our divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states is usurpation by the Article II executive office of the President of the United States of the Article I legislative powers over money and war. Nothing Obama did domestically on DACA or Obamacare endangered either of those powers.
1
It seems to me that Mr Douthat has written an elegant, if somewhat lengthy column that in the end, says simply that Trump's executive overreach is entirely Obama's fault.
4
"...to build the border fencing that the Democratic Party and his own political impotence have denied him."
He had two years of both House and Senate GOP control. It isn't the Democratic Party that has denied him his fence. It is his own laziness in noy pushing it when he had a fair chance and the collective wisdom of both parties who appear to have had all they can take of his blatant lies and self absorbtion.
2
Mitch McConnell is the true culprit. He probably actually understands what is happening. His leadership is traitorous and small minded--and he knows it. His stated goals have been unworthy of the leader of the senate. At the outset of Trump's ascendancy, he could have shown a path out of this awfulness which could have put his nation first. But of course that would have required courage. We are in the Land of Oz.
4
So, Trump is all Obama's fault.
So whatever Obama tried to do with executive orders had nothing to do with McConnell's determination, publicly announced, to make Obama a one-term President via blocking any of his efforts in every way possible, including preventing selection of a Supreme Court justice. A nominee who wasn't even given a hearing.
Had nothing to do with a GOP party so bent on making Obama fail that a Congress member felt proud to shout "You lie!" during a State of The Union speech.
Trump is all Obama's fault. Everything is Obama's fault. There you go again.
3
He plays a tuff guy, but he is weak; morally, politically, ethically, just about any way you look at him, and he is destroying our international position live and in real time and with glee.
Yet he still has a narrow path to victory in '20.
I'm constantly surprised at how the press gaggle at the WH continues to show him any respect at all. How about some knee slapping laughter in his face. Somebody needs to find the guts to insult him to his face for the good of the nation, but they continue to stand to attention and politely plead 'Mr. President! Mr. President' every time. They then listen to him rapid-fire a series of lies, most going unchallenged as such. Can't someone say to his face 'That's a lie.'? So what it Trump bans them all or stops holding press conferences? (History will judge them kindly.) That would be good. He and all his supporters view every press encounter as a win, and in fact his RCP approval numbers are up 2 points over last week to 43.6. Both Trump and the GOP see those numbers as winners, easily making up 3 more points in a general election campaign to win with 46% again in '20.
We are still in deep deep danger, kids.
2
Ross kinda misses the main point here. The GOP members of Congress let this all happen. Largely because they are bought-and-paid-for by billionaire backers. These billionaires control a huge propaganda machine that garners 85% of Republican votes and makes re-election a shoo-in for those that toe the line.
It’s the perversion of politics by these wacko wealthies, not their pathetic front man, that is the story.
3
“he established precedents that a President Hillary Clinton would have undoubtedly embraced.”
would undoubtedly have embraced
Obama tried to do something for the Dreamers. Most Americans, except for Ross and his doctrinaire Republican friends, supported (and still do) Obama’s idea. Since Mitch McConnell was doing all he could to stymie the nation’s first black president, Obama acted through other means. Oh, the horror!
4
The cries of "but Obama did it too" are rather boring, even if they contain a kernel of truth. But consider the contrast: Obama used an executive order to stem impending deportations of Dreamers when their situation in the country was becoming precarious despite the expressed willingness of both parties to resolve their situation. Trump, on the other hand, uses a phony emergency to act unilaterally because his man-child feelings were threatened. Pundits can wax political theoretical all they want, but at some point we're going to just have to face the impossibility of intelligently understanding and theorizing Trump's actions. Because they are the impetuous childish acts of a rich, ignorant, senile man who cannot abide being denied anything he decides he wants. Enough with Arendt references; we have King Joffrey.
2
After my daily anguish over the horrible things Trump does I wrap myself in a blanket of his incompetence to soothe my soul.
2
I love how Douthat doesn't dare come out and declare openly whether he thinks Trump's claimed reasons have any factual merit. They don't, which anyone interested in "The Republic" should always mention prominently and specifically in this case. But heaven forbid you should upset any conservative readers with facts. Experts do indeed bemoan this move--mainly (if they really are experts) because "the Wall" is a non-solution to a non-problem. To infer any other grounds for their opposition (as you so slyly permit) is either sheer cowardice or sheer ignorance. And in your case, Douthat, we know you aren't ignorant.
A con man has one magic trick: skip town and let them find you.
Trump can not and he is sinking into prison.
“and he isn’t even accomplishing any obvious goal .. except the personal one of saving a tiny bit of face.”
Ross, everything in this presidency is about saving face, everything is personal with President Jim Jones!
1
Apparently conservatives have gone back to the "Trump isn't smart enough to be dangerous" argument. I'll politely disagree. Trump just mobilized the military to achieve a personal political objective against the will of Congress. If that's not a Rubicon, I don't know what is. His incompetence is well on display but incompetence doesn't excuse the action.
Next time conservatives are going to argue conspiring with a hostile foreign power to illegitimately win an election is no big deal. Trump bugled the effort so badly he announced his guilt on national television... more than once. Apparently the public shouldn't worry about treason then.
Incompetence is not an excuse. You still get sent to prison even when you botch the bank robbery. Trump's fake emergency demands an adequate punishment for the would-be autocrat.
2
Next up in Ross Douthat's comparative essays: both George Washington and donald trump had problems with honesty — myths about Washington and the cherry tree notwithstanding.
The National Emergencies Act specifically reserves the right of Congress to override a Presidenyial declaration. The Supremes will
punt this back to Congress.
1
Trump's danger to the future depends on his present efficacy, right?
1
Just as Congressional Republicans led by Mitch McConnell did everything in their power to undermine Obama's presidency, they are now doing everything in their power to prop up a clearly unfit and unhinged President Trump. But he is his own worst enemy, and theirs too. Two-thirds of our nation will not stand for it much longer.
1
It shows how Trump's so out of his capacity, that he sends Pence to the World Security Conference. Trump, well of course, he goes golfing in Neverland.
Meanwhile, from Top Stories, 'Karl Kaiser, a longtime analyst of German-American relations, said, “Two years of Mr. Trump, and a majority of French and Germans now trust Russia and China more than the United States.”'
2
I cheerfully admit that President Obama was no saint, he was a run of the mill American President, slightly more to the right than I would have liked, not withstanding the Affordable Care Act. He sounded nice: conciliatory when he had to be, tough when he had to be, and in the process achieved very little, as can be evidenced by the buffoon who replaced him sweeping aside all he achieved.
Nevertheless, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, if the GOP hadn't been hellbent on making his tenure as ineffectual as it has proven to be, we'd all be in a better place.
I do enjoy these hypothetical musings, as Mr Douthat, tries without fail to project a principled conservatism on both a rampant president who knows very little and the sycophants in the GOP who profess to believe in the same principles but can't give up the drug, that Trump, for all his buffoonery, will give them what they want.
We have two years, at least, of this soap opera to endure, as for the GOP, they salivate at the prospect of another SCOTUS judge and plough ever forward with the still hidden destruction this incompetent administration is wreaking on the body politic.
Perhaps, Mr Douthat, if he believes Trump is as ineffectual as he tells us he is, he could train his keen and penetrating mind on the enablers of this horror show. After all, he is a man of deep principles, or so he says.
1
You should write a column about the real enemy of democracy- Mitch McConnell.
4
Wait a minute. Obama's unilateralism is what made people vote for Trump? Where is the logic in that? Trump's voters for the most part loathed Obama.
1
Every new column by member in good standing of the professional Republican Commentariat, Ross Douthat, raises the question “is he mentally defective, or morally defective”. With this new low of false equivalence between the actions of a decent, moral man and Trump, a man undeniably of no morals and no decency, the question has been answered: the fault lies in Douthat’s morals.
1
Presidential “caesarism” is an excellent term. Another one may be Presidential "bonapartism".
Yes, Mr. Douthat. Of course. We are 'misremembering' President Obama as a ''punctilious norm-respecter.'
In the same way that you and your sophist ilk recall Republican leader McConnell as a stalwart defender of democratic precedent.
Obama, overwhelmingly and legitimately elected and re-elected (meaning by Americans rather than enlisted Russian trolls) was prevented from enacting any part of his agenda by malevolence culminating finally in the unprecedented theft of a Supreme Court seat in the guise of the criminal artifice known as the so-called 'McConnell doctrine.'
That a popular president would, when faced with criminal intransigence and shameless obstructionism by the opposing party would try to find another way to do the People's business is hardly surprising.
To compare that in any way with the criminal enterprise known as the 'Trump administration' aided and abetted by its lackeys and lickspittles a/k/a the Republican congress, is journalistic malpractice.
2
"With Trump, though, the only clear precedent being set is one of deplorable incompetence."
Was Hillary correct? Who supports deplorable incompetence and deplorable subverting of the American election process by Russia other than deplorables?
1
The real crisis is the complete destruction of what we used to think of as "democratic norms" when centrists from both sides marginalized the flame-throwers in their parties and got things done. That is dead, and Ross, try as you may you cannot avoid the plain fact that conservatives and the Republican party killed it.
The final straw, for any reasonable person who hadn't been paying attention, was Obama's nomination of Garland (no flame-thrower he) that the Repubs flushed down the toilet. Their "good faith" centrist response once the Presidency flipped: Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Before that you have 100% Republican party-line opposition to centrist reforms of health care (adopting policies formerly endorsed by moderate conservatives) and banking in the aftermath of a thermonuclear explosion of the economy fueled by laissezfaire Republican regulatory "reforms." Not to mention the Iraq War. At some point you have to stop showing up at a gunfight with rubber bands. I'm no fan of the leftist agenda currently evolving, but if it gains traction I will LOVE to see it shoved down the throat of the "party of Lincoln."
1
Don Quixote's second expedition comes to mind, but instead of a lance the imperious, bighead might have some support from his more Quixotic right wing base.
"Who knows what evil lurks" in the empty hearts of ostrich jacketed cronies?
1
This essay is weak and shallow. In summary, there is no constitutional crisis because Trump is incompetent. The proper villain was Obama, not only did he ignore Congress but he was competent to boot!
Democracy dies in darkness, the earnest WaPo tagline reads, but it also withers under waves of poisonous false equivalence such as this.
Badly done! Reduce Mr. Douthat's bonus check right away, please.
2
"Just following in F P Obama's unconstitutional footsteps," that's not what you want us to take away from this piece, is it, Mr R?
If it is, respectfully suggested here that to be presumptively credible, somethin' a good deal beyond the limits of a column is gonna be necessary.
And equally respectfully, that somethin'll be equally preposterous. Presumptively, of course.
I don't understand why the media and general public have not noticed that the greatest threat to democratic governance presently, is not the sad aberration named Trump, but the most dangerous person in present day politics--I give you the fascist in sheep's clothing---Mitch McConnell.The politician who allows Trump's wild, incoherent dictates.
An elected official from a generally backward and somewhat radically conservative state, Kentucky, with a population insignificant next to the nation's total populace, he literally dictates all that happens in our government. The Garland case is unprecedented in our history; the refusal to bring committee, bi partisan legislation to a vote is dictatorial at best. His overt refusal to acknowledge Obama as a duly elected president, is criminal. Further, he publicly attempted to negate Obama's presidency, forcing Obama's excessive use of executive orders. His subservience to an unhinged Trump, is cringe worthy.
The senate must make new rules to guard against anyone person from having such unlimited power to force one's agenda upon the nation.
1
Mr. Douthat, I understand that your detestation of that decent human being Barack Obama knows no bounds. I also understand that your mild distaste for the incumbent is tempered by your religious convictions--in this particular instance, your almost paganistic worship at the altar of False Equivalence. But I cannot understand your willful disregard of this blatant temper tantrum caused by--not resulting from--an insistence that obedience to the caudillo trumps all policies. And that, sadly, makes all that you write almost as much gibberish as the caudillo's statements.
2
Impotent? Once again, a columnist at the Times underestimates Donald Trump. His shutdown, the National Emergency, everything he has done, is making him into a superstar with the right-leaning white voters of this country. They believe government is the problem and that their hero is draining the swamp. He has taken their rage about having no future (and a past compromised by abuses of people of color), and turned it into an engine powering him up the mountain of fame. Finally someone is DOING something for them. Someone strong enough to get around the system. To break through.
Are there true-believers like Mr. Douthat who see through Trump? Absolutely. Will they amount to more than a hill of beans? Not as things stand now. Trump may yet vindicate them by a misstep so egregious that even his ardent fans will recoil from it. But as of now, all they see, even the anti-semites, is chutzpah.
General Franco ,(the first "Caudillo"), would be insulted and roll over in his grave. Oh wait he is. No our Franco's executive order is fundamentally no different than the one after 9/11.
A caudillo spirit is brought to the White House by every President; and the last one left there by Barack Hussein Obama II was particularly overreaching. Is that it, Mr Douthat?
So, "Obama's fault" can explain it, ..again. Relieved to know that the US Senate's abrogation of responsibilities for appropriations is unimportant ..because, get this, ..Trump's "contempt for constitutional limits is so naked and his incompetence so stark" that Trump stumbled into "modestly, modestly" causing pushback upon Obama's imperially rogue caudillo spirit.
Apparently, a Narcissist's Wall for a Fake Emergency isn't the only "clownish interlude in the republic’s decline".
Mitch McConnell stopped Obama's initiatives from having a hearing in Congress. Had McConnell let Obama's legislation be voted on and the vote went against Obama, there's no chance he would have moved forward on his own and used executive orders. He would have accepted his loss in Congress.
Trump's wall has had a hearing in Congress and the Congress didn't give him want he wanted. Trump is determined to have his way anyway, bypassing Congress to get what he wants. Trump won't accept his loss, not because there's a real emergency, but because he cannot deal with being told 'no.' That's the difference.
5
No. Obama used executive power when Congress refused to do anything. Trump is using it when he doesn't get his way. There is a difference.
6
"...Trump has (modestly, modestly) weakened the imperial presidency by generating somewhat more pushback than his predecessors..."
It's not clear that this is true. It's another step along a trail paved in Executive Orders, National Security Findings, and Signing Statements at the end of which (and the end is in sight), the Executive Branch will be the only "governing" branch of government and the Congress will be a ceremonial and vestigial organ.
After Watergate new restraints were put on the Presidency. Those restraints have become obsolete. It's time for new restraints, and it's time for the Presidency to be walled off from the organs of the administration of justice. It might have made sense in the courtly world of the Founding Fathers for the President to oversee the administration of justice, but those days are long long gone.
A big difference with Obama’s executive actions is that they were carefully crafted and rooted to federal laws. Many of these actions, though not all, have held up in court.
By contrast, most of Trump’s executive actions and acts of deregulation are ad hoc and routinely struck down in court, especially his environmental policies.
The point is that there is not a simplistic equivocation between Obama’s and Trump’s use of executive orders. Obama at least tried to fit his ideological goals within the system of laws, while Trump wants to change the rules in order to fit his own ends.
2
Well, there's your party difference in a nutshell: when Obama exerted executive privilege, he was doing it in an effort to improve the general welfare; when Trump does it, he's trying to hurt as many people as possible.
8
Close but no cigar.
The Supreme Court stopped Truman's power grab, a temporary nationalization of the steel industry. If it doesn't stop Trump's, the justices will confirm widespread concern that today's men in black will let the Constitution suffer any indignity so long as it is inflicted by a Republican.
Fortunately, my wife and I just saw VICE, a scenery chewer with a powerful message about the depths to which abuse of power may take us. Douthat wrongly treats the Iraq war as a relatively condign mistake even as he overstates the impact of Obama's immigration Executive Order, which did not rest on the phony concept of a Unitary Executive.
A President is charged with administering immigration laws. He or she does not have the resources to do more than selectively choose categories of people for detention and deportation. Obama choose not to deport Dreamers, who have no other country than the U.S., while Trump choose to spend federal funds on tearing children from their parents. Now he wants funds appropriated for other purposes (e.g., national defense) to build vanity bollards without Congressional authorization.
Douthat is correct to blame the Congress for a bad "emergencies" law. It should, as he says, rewrite that law to put reasonable bounds on this and future Presidents.
4
We are now pushing into late February. Dems won back the House in November based on healthcare, while Trump and the Republicans were trying to make the mid-terms about the wall and immigration.
It is time for Dems to get back to playing offense, instead of reacting as Trump sets the agenda. File the lawsuits against Trump's phony "emergency," have the 2 or 3 talking points ready to counter the "invasion," but it is time to move on and stay on the message of improving healthcare, the thing Americans care most about.
6
@Dan88 Won in November, Seated in January, waited out the 6-week shutdown... I agree it's time to move on and get to work, but there's a reason for the slower roll out.
1
@Katrin Exactly my point Katrin. Every day we are not talking about healthcare is a good day for Trump and the Republicans.
The six week shutdown ended almost a month ago, but then everything was put on hold during the three weeks to craft a new bill, and now all the talk and tither is about Trump's "emergency."
So Trump has managed to kill the clock almost 3 months now, and Dems today are left with a little over 20 months to make a positive case for replacing Trump in November 2020. Time to play offense.
Incompetence? If only it were. The President has tasked the Department of Defense and Homeland Security with building this wall. He doesn't need additional funding from other sources to do this. He can use what he has now and use future appropriations from these departments to continue. If the courts reject the declaration, their reach only extends to use of funds across departments, not the within-department discretionary expenditures. In the meantime, he still has opportunities to appoint judges that support his view; but that is just gravy--what the Supreme Court decides in this is irrelevant to this decision. A Supreme Court decision limiting impetus or scope might, however, have implications for national emergency declarations for gun control, climate change or national birthrates.
Videos and pictures of a wall being built at a fraction of the cost sell better in Political ads that 5.7 million dollar boondoggles.
If there is an upside to Trump, it will come in a pushback against the imperial presidency which started with Obama. But for both presidents we must remember the reason for executive fiats. Congress has rendered itself impotent by inaction for decades. The pushback to the imperial president is contingent upon Congress resuming their role as the primary branch and that requires passing laws to deal with the very issues that are addressed by the executive orders. There is plenty of blame to go around but that is counterproductive to the fact that Congress must step up and cooperate.
109
Just because the President declares something a crisis doesn't mean that it is. People of both parties need to be more critical of the Presidents they voted for, not just the ones they didn't. And remember that a President will always be from one party or the other, not both.
Congressional inaction, or thwarting of the Presidency, is a "feature, not a bug" of our Constitution. If the President can't convince the House and Senate to act on a problem, maybe there is not agreement on the best way to fix the problem. Or that it's really as big a problem as the President says it is.
7
@dudley thompson What? Imperial presidency that started witih Obama? Laughable.
30
@dudley thompson The "Imperial Presidency" was written by Schlesinger in 1973, shortly before the resignation of Richard Nixon. The author was concerned with the growth of executive power from Washington to Nixon (and future presidents). At that time, 1973, we were having really serious problems with the actions of the presidency. Today's situation is concerning but we will survive and-hopefully-learn from our mistakes.
18
Constitutionally, this may be the most important case to reach the Court since Brown v. Board of Education, not so much for the outcome but for the reasoning behind it.
The Court could strike down the power grab by simply stating the justification for it is obviously pretextual; even Trump said it was unnecessary in his statement. Or they could uphold Trump, saying that the president is given wide latitude in such matters, and since the statute in question has a mechanism for Congress to overrule the president, it is not for the courts to step in. I believe at least Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch will take this line and Roberts may be the swing vote.
In any case, if the Democrats retake the Senate and the presidency in 2020 I hope that the statute is amended to more narrowly define an "emergency" so this debacle does not reoccur.
3
To be sure, Constitutionally speaking, mentioning the similarities between Obama and Trump declaring emergencies is mostly honest. However, the differences show the difference between the Democratic and the Republican Party. It reveals a Republican Party that is only interested in appearance for the sake of base-play and forsakes almost nothing for the dollar.
Obama’s declaration of emergencies were to try to deal with big problems for which neither party has the necessary will— immigration and environmental catastrophe.
Building a wall that is 1500 miles long for billions of dollars is a bad idea, even by Trump’s standards.
The fact that his own party balked at it shows the lack of support. It is truly disturbing that they won’t support it, but will allow him to go medieval in pushing for it. Congressional Republicans lack of concern for dealing with real problems would stump our Forefathers.
Let’s start educating our electorate, so democracy means something.
188
@K. Corbin Unfortunately I think it is much too late to start educating our electorate. Our Republic is well past the point of saving.
5
Sadly, the obsequiousness on the part of McConnell and his Senate Republicans speaks volumes. McConnell is as guilty as Trump for not utilizing the Senate, in conjunction with the Democratic led House, to act as a clear check on Trump's plans to create a national emergency. If getting re-elected to a position where you are then afraid or unwilling to use the constitutional authority granted by our founding fathers, there is no point to run for that office.
I will not dispute that President Obama pushed executive action to the limit. But if we are going to compare, let's be fair:
- Trump had the chance to get $25 billion in exchange for a path to citizenship for the Dreamers. He did NOT take it because Fox News said so. What did Republicans offered Obama for the Dreamers? NOTHING.
- President Obama tried for over a year to work with Republicans to get a new Health Care system that would help people. After CONGRESS enacted a law that was closer to the MA model (private) than Single Payer, Republicans spent YEARS trying to erode it. And when they got in power, with all branches in their control, they couldn't even repeal Obamacare! Any executive action from President Obama about this was to PROTECT AMERICANS.
And the list could go on. As I said, I'm not denying President Obama's acts. But you can't certainly play "whataboutism" with the good intentions of one, and the racism and classism of the other.
6
I’m sure many of us used to think along the same lines as Mr. Douthat - “Not that they [future presidents] won’t be so tempted [to use a declaration of national emergency in a blatant abuse of power] — but I just can’t imagine anyone looking at the political train wreck of Trump’s unilateralism and seeing a precedent worth invoking.”
We used to think it couldn’t happen. Not any more. Congress must act to put some sideboards on this, to prevent the next Donald Trump from abusing his/her authority.
1
Let's make a complicated issue simple. The Constitution gives the executive branch the authority and responsibility to implement the laws Congress passes. To implement, they must be interpreted. The executive branch under Obama interpreted the laws. There was disagreement and the judicial branch is called upon to determine if the interpretations are reasonable/with the intent of Congress. This was essentially routine exercise of the powers granted to the three branches of government under the Constitution.
The emergency declaration by Trump is an attempt to reallocate funds appropriated by Congress. Only Congress has the authority under the Constitution to appropriate funds.
Obama was interpreting law, Trump is attempting to circumvent the Constitution.
I see attempting to circumvent the Constitution as not routine and dangerous.
251
@Bob P Your first paragraph should be common knowledge for every mentally competent adult. Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case.
17
From a Christian point of view, it's very interesting to note that Obama's over-reaches were in support of helping other people and also that it was fueled by something other than jealousy: compassion. And I do think that the Republicans he worked with also made the presidency more "imperial" because they basically refused to work with him and do their jobs.
370
@wanda I generally agree, except that NO Republicans worked with Obama and ALL Republicans worked against him, for reasons largely related to racism.
37
@wanda yes, the GOP forced Obama to issue executive orders. Racism, intolerance, and pride led to their ridiculous positions on what Obama tried to do. Unlike Trump, Obama did attempt to improve life for all Americans. The GOP has betrayed us and ought to be turned out of office at every level.
52
A huge difference between Obama and Trump - Mitch McConnell would not allow debate on the floor with many of Obama's efforts. His initiatives were DOA in the Senate, purely because McConnell's MO was to make him fail.
Trump's bill went through a bi-partisan process and came out as it did. The process was worked through. Was the process worked through with Merrick Garland??
The comparison on immigration policy is opportunistic. To say Obama set the precedent and Trump is simply upping the ante is crazy talk.
747
@WJL
Because Republicans hammer on similarities when it's convenient, whether they exist or not, and ignore them when it's inconvenient, whether they exist or not.
The only truth is that they want total, absolute power for themselves and do not recognize that legitimacy of honest opposition or criticism.
In other words, the Republican Party has advocated one-Party rule since the day that Newt Gingrich became Speaker and Tom DeLay majority leader. They showed it doesn't matter if you have the votes--you just gerrymander districts to get them. And you only pretend-deal with the opposition when it is expedient. They lost their way 25 years ago and the result is: Trump and McConnell.
59
@WJL
Thank you!
Ross-- where are you??? It's time for you to respond to some of these comments. Time to say-- this latest attempt at false equivalence does not hold water.
You say Trump is weak-- but the Republicans in Congress will not contribute to a 2/3 majority to override his veto. So he is not so weak after all. And his reckless impulsive rule is much scarier than anything Obama ever did for "Dreamers"-- (which was within non-emergency executive discretion-- since it is impossible to deport all the persons who are not legally present in the U.S.-- and so some prioritization is necessary--- and since such an order did not take away Congress's power of the purse).
38
@WJL -- Exactly. The idea that Obama paved the way for this limp caudillo is fatuous. Trump is sui generis. And Mr. Bruni downplays the threat here: there is a possibility that this executive overreach and usurpation of Congressional powers could be enshrined in legal precedent if it gets to his stacked Supreme Court.
34
Executive overreach is emblematic of stalemated government. Big problems continue to pile up, but nothing gets done to fix them. Nothing indeed can be done without end-running institutional obstacles. So various forms of unilateral executive action become attractive, whether for building wonderful amazing walls to protect us from things that go bump in the night or for shutting down coal-fueled power plants spewing into the air carbon dioxide and noxious pollutants. As always, the importance of the end is described as justifying a dubious means.
Ultimately a government that only knows how to say no and degenerates into little more than a cookie jar for enriching the greedy and clever is doomed to fail. We are seeing unmistakable signs of institutional collapse. Perhaps it's not yet too late to right the ship, but there is no more time for mere dalliance. A time of reckoning is at hand. Can this form of government once again become an effective tool for solving national problems?
Trump is a buffoon, and his border crisis is fundamentally just another media entertainment. His removal from office, whether by impeachment or electoral defeat, will be in itself an inconsequential event. The real test will come after the carnival sideshow winds down when we find out whether we still actually possess the capacity for effective national action.
111
We, including you, Mr. Douthat, make the mistake of taking this fool too seriously. We would not make this mistake if what we were watching was a professional wrestling match, all antics of which are lies, and all participants of which know that. In fact, such a show would not make the news, but that's exactly what's going on here--this show is "making" the news.
Trump does not really want to win the battle of the wall. Winning does not serve his purposes, and he knows that. He has already undermined his case before the Supreme Court with his remarks--"I didn't have to do this"--and his reason is, that for the next 2 years, the journey of battling toward the Supreme Court and losing will provide a more complete distraction for what he's really doing behind his shameful curtain than winning will. The "fight" will enliven his base more effectively over the long haul (because the press will cover every aspect of it) than the "win," the story of which will disappear quickly and people will look for another distraction.
Meanwhile, diversion in hand, he will go on undermining the fabric of our society and divert us from addressing the social, economic, and environmental issues that threaten our existence, if not our well being.These are the things we are really afraid of--because we don't know what to do about them. Absent a solution and in the presence of fear, we can always make ourselves feel better, i.e., righteous, by turning on the news or picking up the New York Times.
3
Lou Dobbs, a FOX entertainer suggested about 1 , month ago ,that Trump should do this to stop the liberals from getting their way. In his rambling and mostly o incoherent speech he admitted that #1- He did not have to do this and
#2- He already had political advantage pushing the wall.
This pretty much confirms the case against him that this was not and emergency and that it involves his politics not the nations safety.
2
The argument that Trump is bad but the Democrats have been in the past and will be in the future EVEN WORSE is the best you can do? Republicans are hanging on to a thread of hope that they can survive their party's nightmare and wake up to discover Trump has only been a bad dream. Dream on! Trump is real and the consequences will be real as well.
4
Well! God help us if a “more dangerous would-be autocrat” decides to abuse his power to declare an emergency when there is none. The author seems unaware that we have arrived to this dark place. Why is that?
2
Every Trump defeat is, in his telling, a win. Each one of his bankruptcies was a win, because he forced his lenders to shoulder the burden of his bad business decisions. His huge tax losses, likewise, were wins since the government (and other taxpayers) bore the costs of his failures. He can’t get even his own party to support his border wall, so taking money from the military and drug interdiction budgets to build it is a victory. Shutting down the government is a victory, because (in his telling) only Democrats work for the government. Pulling out troops from an unfinished war is a victory. A two-hour meeting with the North Korean murderous leader that leads to nothing is a win.
A man who thinks he can do no wrong learns nothing and, ultimately, will wind up doing little right.
6
The last real change to presidential power came when congress relinquished the right to weigh in on war under Bush the younger. The presidential power have remained the same ever since and are still the same under Trump. He is just spectacularly inept at any political maneuver because he is without a clue as to how anything real actually works. He has the mind of a six year old spoiled brat.
What he has changed is that he has assured that the senate is weak and useless, and that the supreme court is specifically there to protect the wealthy people from the poor and middle class. He has also served Vlad Putin and undermined our intelligence agencies and alienated allies and undermined international agreements. If he were actually capable and with the same intent we would already been destroyed. However, the presidency remains with the same powers as usual, with the exception of the war powers that once were part of congresses area of concern.
2
The Obama DACA policy was nothing more than a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. It happens every day of the week at the state and federal level. With limited law enforcement resources, we choose to focus on those criminal acts that are more serious. Faultless people merely existing is not one of them. So...not a Caesarian power grab at all.
4
Douthat touches on trump's contempt for constitutional limits, but is silent on Mitch McConnell's contempt for the constitution. McConnell gleefully denied Judge Merrick Garland a hearing, in clear violation of his own constitutional duty. He continues to aid and abet trump in his trampling of the constitution.
Trump couldn't behave like an autocrat if McConnell and previously Paul Ryan weren't his co-conspirators.
7
"to build the border fencing that the Democratic Party and his own political impotence have denied him."
Mr. Douthet neglects to mention that from 2016-2018 the GOP controlled the entire government and his own party refused to fund the wall.
5
Ross Douthat strikes a "whistling past the graveyard" pose when he says:
"So the emergency declaration is not itself a constitutional emergency. Rather, as often in the Trump presidency, it’s a moment that illuminates how a more dangerous would-be autocrat might someday act. It’s a weird foretaste, not the main event. A warning, not a crisis. A clownish interlude in the republic’s decline, not the Rubicon itself."
... while Noah Rothman , Assoc. Editor of Commentary, sees the threat more starkly:
"This is a moment of extreme national cowardice. America’s governing institutions are abdicating their authority in pursuit of expedience and amid a craven scramble to save face. A precedent has been established that all Americans, but conservative Americans in particular, will long regret."
Among these duelling Conservatives, Mr. Rothman's darker vision of the future is more in keeping with threat of rising signs of fascism we see here and and abroad.
2
Congress has assigned itself the role of obstructionist, and forgotten its job as "representatives" of the people. The result has been that imperial presidents and the henchmen in their palaces have taken over all aspects of the creation of laws and regulations. The only check or balance being the supreme court--a job it is incredibly incapable of doing unless it has to do with the constitution and the rights of citizens.
The ill advice from the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, or Arnie Duncan and Hillary Clinton (as Sec of State) to act without oversight is the prime cause of the imperial presidency. The remedy, had it happened, would have been for congress to insist that actions that harm the nation have responsible authors who will be taken to account. The WMD lies that started the invasion of Iraq should have led to people losing their jobs at the least. Duncan should not be able to lead our educational policies down a path that made money for his pals without like-wise losing his job for it.
Congress has blown it. They have been bought, and rather than enact laws that keep their rich overlords out of our politics, they bury their heads and let Presidents and their cronies take-over.
2
Trump's undisguised usurpation of Congress's power of the purse is an open-and-shut case for impeachment, even if only a few billions of dollars are at stake.
It would be foolhardy to defer opposing Trump until his actions are irresistible. Obama's power grabs may have been equally egregious, but were not fiscal in nature, allowing House Democrats to say that a vote against Trump would not have applied to his predecessor.
1
Rest easy, Ross. The Supreme Court, stocked with McConnellesque “conservatives,” will never tolerate a Democratic president’s emergency orders. The Supremes won’t care what you think, either. They were installed to promote Republican prerogatives, which is just what you asked for.
5
"I just can’t imagine anyone looking at the political train wreck of Trump’s unilateralism and seeing a precedent worth invoking."
Mr Douthat must have forgotten that even the "respectable" GOP has been taken over by literal gangsters whose obstruction was unprecedented.
It's time to stop pretending that Trump is in any significant way worse than the rest of the GOP.
1
Mr. Douthat;
you are exhibiting a great internal strength with your continued attacks against our (p)resident. Though I am surprised that you haven't folded your tent, so to speak, I am heartened by your words - and your conviction.
Douthat is nothing, if not a good writer. If I had not been of voting age throughout the the early 21st century, I might actually believe that Trump is less of a danger than Bush or Obama. Bush reacted to a genuine attack of unprecedented devastation by non-state actors. That did not make attacking Iraq or allowing torture and a pseudo parallel judiciary acceptable, but reasonable people could say he as reacting to real dangers. More importantly, George W. Bush did have an ironclad grip on a large plurality of the Republicans that he could task with primarying his opponents at will. As for Obama, he simply sought to use Executive branch agencies’ regulatory powers when it became apparent to him that Republicans loved nothing better than denying his plans. No matter how clumsy and crude his approach is, Trump is ignoring the powers of Congress the way any would be strongman would. Even more dangerous is that formerly outspoken members of his party have chosen to follow a Trump no matter how egregious his overreach has become.
You have to ask how much power a President should have and should he use it? We're in the same place we were twenty years ago with no results. Bush and Obama tried. The difference now the think tanks and social psychologist deal with have convinced the leaders there's more votes in crying three year old girls than rusted fences.
What we want is what we want. We are incapable of critical thinking and unable to think we could wrong. We want a leader do our will. Not a legislature to mess things up. Serial abusers of presidential powers like Obama and Trump create a contempt for our antiquated process. All it takes is a signature.
For argruements sake. How many climate change "believers" want the power to save the world? To do what needs to be done without the obstacle of open discussion or votes?
The issue is the imperial Presidency itself. Not Trump. Not Obama. The issue is an Congress that doesn't do its job. The immigration issue for example should have been settled years ago.
Congress needs to reassert itself and not depend on the President or the Courts to do its job. That is how to make America great again.
Congress needs to be the adult in the room who knows how to calm the childish antics of wayward Presidents.
1
The fire that burned the Capitol to the ground was unfortunately aggravated by firefighters’ inability to get to it because of the barriers installed by President Trump to forestall caravan terrorists. Fortunately, the fire occurred during the current Congressional hiatus, so no one was killed.
Before we hastily rebuild the Capitol, we should realize that, with President Trump assuming Congress’ prerogatives, there’s little reason for the members to return.
It's ridiculous to assert that "Trump’s caudillo act is substantially less dangerous than what his predecessors did."
A core principle of the Constitution is that Congress determines how taxpayer monies are to be spent and the Executive spends that money in the most effective way consistent with legislative intent.
Trump apparently feels that the US Treasury is a giant slush fund he can use for any purpose he chooses, including uses specifically rejected by Congress.
The root of Executive power is the power to spend. What more dangerous precedent can there be than an Executive unconstrained from the will of the people represented by the people's elected legislators?
1
I always find it interesting how "originalist" defenders of the Constitution can go along with corruption as long as their guy is in charge.
Let's state the obvious: From an originalist position, this emergency declaration is a violation fo the Constitution. But, let's watch as Republican Senators and five "originalist" members of the Supreme Court find a way to contort themselves into approving this move.
Bret is correct that we're seeing an incompetently clownish violation of the Constitution--one that should be easily swatted away by people who actually care about our Republic.
Bret is also correct that this bit of incompetence lays the groundwork for a much larger future violation of the Constitution by a competent autocrat. It's strange to be happy that a president is incompetent.
Let's stop the corruption here. Republicans need to stand up for the Constitution, not a person.
2
Mr Douthat comparisons between President Obama and Trump are at best inaccurate. Obama used Executive Orders only after the Repubs decided that they would not, in principle, try to work with the Dems on anything; all they did was obstruct, culminating in the Merrick Garland appointment that the loathsome Mitch McConnell gleefully stymied, saying it was his proudest moment when telling Obama he wouldn't fill that Supreme Court seat. This is also why Harry Reid restricted the use of the filibuster; McConnell used it to the point where nothing would get done; so McConnell caused the crisis, then decried the result.
Trump, on the other hand, has never really tried to govern within our system. Being both ignorant and lazy, he barely acknowledges Congress as a co-equal branch, and thought he could simply issue edicts, as though he were an elected monarch.
So though both used Executive Orders extensively, the reasons why were as different as they could be.
2
It's not just the Democrats and Trumps political impotence that denied Trump his wall. His wall has always lacked the broad political support needed. Democratically elected Congress does not and did not support a wall. GOP Trumpists should have won bigger in 2016 or won the midterms. In a democracy, elections have consequences. Sad.
1
Conservatives like to tell us that disaster, ruin and decline is always around the corner so this measure of conservative optimism is curiously dissonant.
The conservative voters learned that they elected a man that had the desire and the means to become the tyrant they want. but he lacked competence.
So next time they will elect a polite milquetoast establishment man who will not rock the boat. Really?
1
Ross says he "...just can’t imagine anyone looking at the political train wreck of Trump’s unilateralism and seeing a precedent worth invoking."
Donald John Trump, Jr., Mike Pence, any one of the TEA Party or Freedom Caucus (realizing there is significant overlap) adherents with presidential aspirations, even, I will posit, Lindsay Graham, sycophant extraordinaire, would quite willingly and quickly don the robe and the crown left hanging on the corners of the Oval Office Throne and follow in his Trump's footsteps.
Trump's mortal remains I envision lying, Lenin-like, in permanent state in the Capitol Rotunda, inside his crystal and gold coffin, as a reminder to all of what has to be done to truly govern a country. The House and Senate, appendix-like, will devolve into vestigial Greek choruses, permanently, not just spasmodically.
Mitch McConnell has already endorsed Trump's usurpation of the House's power of the purse. Can Lindsey G. be far behind? Mitch needs only 33 votes besides his to avert a veto override. Piece of cake for McConnell. Not that he'd have much worry about the House falling a couple of dozen shy of the needed 290 votes.
America, for the next 20 months, will teeter on the razor's edge. As Ross said early on, republics are iterative. America is but one in a series. The decay is moving rapidly from being superficial and peripheral to systemic sepsis. If Trump is not removed -soon- and remains after 2020, gangrene of the vital organs is assured.
1
Mr Douthat attempts to minimize the danger of our wannabe dictator by trotting out false equivalences to somehow make President Obama a greater threat to our country because he was more intelligent and competent.
He ignores a huge part of the problem with Trump, who is fulfilling a major Republican wish by appointing large numbers of right wing judges, not just Supreme Court justices, who are far more likely to actively repeal large parts of the New Deal and Twentieth Century.
This will likely have all sorts of terrible effects on many things. And contrary to what Mr Douthat says, these right wing judges with their limited or twisted understanding of American history and the Constitution will also make a slide toward dictatorship more likely.
3
I wonder whether Fox News will publish its own textbooks in the future, in which the “alternative history” of the Trump administration is adjudged to be something other than a historic disaster.
3
A lot of commenters here have made the rebuttal to Ross that the overreach Le Grand Orange is engaging in is different in both degree and in kind--specifically, bypassing the House's power of the purse--than that of Barack Obama, so I won't reiterate it, though there are, perhaps, arguments to be made for reining in the general expansion of the Chief Executive's power over the last several decades of the "imperial Presidency".
I do have a problem with the claim that the reason this particular emergency declaration is not so bad, though, is that it is less competent and well-reasoned than those in the past it is compared to, and therefore less of a thin end the wedge situation.
The fact that Trump, as a politician, is disinterested, clumsy, and careless does not in any way alter the fact that his attempt at unilateral executivism threatens the foundations of Constitutional government. Sure, other, more subtle and well-crafted emergency declarations may do that, too--but it doesn't take away from how inappropriate this one is, especially since this one involves the use of the military in a manner that is not part of its purview.
I don't subscribe to the proposition that openly dumb and clumsy is necessarily any less dangerous than sneakily smart.
2
I am 70 and my father taught me to be a fact checker from when I was 5 and 70 years later there are are many people I admire and they too belong to the people I fact check.
I even fact check myself and it is not uncommon for me to jump out of bed at four in the morning (actually 4 in the afternoon as i am a night person) to fact check myself). Today another story in the Guardian another Churchill Fiend or Saint story.
Churchill is not my hero and Trump seems Churchill with a very important part missing. I can't identify what Trump is missing but I know it is very important. Worst of all I don't know if this is good or bad but limp caudillo sure does sum it up.
2
No, Mr. Douthat. During the Obama presidency, there was more "caesarism" by McConnell than by Obama. Besides, Trump appears to prefer the third world dictator model.
2
So the silver lining here for conservatives should be that Trump is so loathsome that his actions will never be cited as precedent? How about the precedent of 90% of Republicans willingly letting him get away with his coup d’etat?
2
A clownish assault on the U.S. Constitution is still an assault. Donald Trump has earned impeachment. Will Congress do its clear duty to remove a clear and present danger to the Constitution?
2
"... he isn’t even accomplishing any obvious goal ... except the personal one of saving a tiny bit of face." Isn't that always his greatest concern -- maybe, really, his only one?
2
I really detest intellectual pretzel logic that tries to convince us that up is down, white is black, and that 2 + 2 equals $8 billion dollars.
Here's the fundamental flaw in Mr. Douthat's logic, and it's both simple and blatant:
Republican outrage means NOTHING if Senators continue to talk one way and vote another, as they have done repeatedly for the last 2 years and 2 months. If they don't actively VOTE to stop Trump's power grab, it will succeed. There are 47 Democrats and 53 Republicans. About 6 Republicans have indicated they MIGHT vote to deny Trump his fake national emergency. But every one of them has talked tough in the past, yet voted with Trump and McConnell time after time.
And even if those 6 (or 7) DO pass the denial of the emergency, when Trump vetoes it, how do we get 20 Republicans (47+20=67) to overturn the veto--plus 55 or more GOP Representatives to reach the 290 threshold?
If Trump's veto is sustained, which is hard not to see, it means Mr. Douthat's thesis isn't worth a bucket of rotting fish! His imperial power grab WILL succeed and the GOP's "co-equal branch assertion" will be even more non-existent.
Then there's the courts. McConnell is seeking to have even LESS chance to vet candidates with a mid-term rule change to drop from 30 to 2 hours of questioning as he hurries to pack the Federal Courts with lackies in anticipation of Mueller's devastating report showing the entire Administration catastrophically colluded.
The thesis is absurd.
3
And when Trump indefinitely suspends the 2020 election due to another fake "National Emergency" and dismisses Congress while he issues ukases that totally violate the Constitution, will Mr. Douthat yet again explain to us how this is good for us and weakens Trump's power? Because you know that's coming if he gets away with this.
There are many problems with Mr. Douthat's piece today...
First, Mr. Obama issued fewer executive orders than did many of his predecessors:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/obama-executive-orders/
Second, Mr. Douthat (willfully?) ignores that the GOP/presidency under George W. Bush made the "unitary executive" a cornerstone of their policy shop and dealings with congressional oversight. Mr. Obama did not comparatively abuse his executive authority so much as Mr. Douthat appears to simply disagree with the environmental and immigration policies they sought to enact.
Third, Mr. Douthat (willfully?) ignores that both Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush enacted similar executive orders surrounding immigration and the "legalization" / amnesty of immigrants.
If an argument is based on false or incomplete facts, then the conclusions that flow from that argument are fatally flawed...which is often the case with Mr. Douthat's "sober conservative point of view."
3
I think I understand Douthat's point. This was all Obama's fault.
Without false equivalencies, Trump-appalled Republican columnists could barely get through the day.
4
No one in the political commentary field can create "isms" more than Douthat.
Frank Luntz would be proud, but the field of political commentary should not be.
"Executive unilateralism"? What is wrong with plain, ordinary "executive order"? Hey, it could have been worse; Obama could have excised the parts of bills he didn't like in Bush-like "signing statements.
Now THERE was some "executive unilateralism" that Douthat seems to forget about.
" Not that they won’t be so tempted — but I just can’t imagine anyone looking at the political train wreck of Trump’s unilateralism and seeing a precedent worth invoking."
Here, Ross fiddles while the country burns.
Trump's fake national emergency is what the GOP will use to get Trump re-elected and win back the House in 2020.
"Jobs, not mobs" did not work. Duct taped women, caravans, MS13, small pox, leprosy, none of it worked in 2018 to sufficiently scare voters.
BUT a "President Warren" declaring an emergency to take away your guns and bibles will drive angry white voters to the polls in record numbers.
We saw this strategy yesterday when elected officials from Wyoming took to the floors of Congress to claim Democrats are coming for your ice cream, your cheeseburgers, your airplane ticket and your pick up truck.
2
OK, so Ross greets Trump's stunt with a yawn, while the rest of us lie in bed at 2 in the morning, in fear of the future of our own government, feeling entirely helpless. Fine.
And he's largely right about Obama, he did set some bad patterns. Ross forgets to mention how Obama's Justice Dept decided not to enforce marijuana laws, setting the stage for Trump administration antics with the ACA. And under Bush and Obama, the cowardly Republican Congress looked the other way while the President waged all manner of wars, so they wouldn't have to take a stand. They blamed Obama for failing to enforce the red line in Syria, but it was actually Congress's duty to act. Their failure was a reprehensible dereliction of duty.
But Trump's stunt is a blatant disregard for the specific and explicit will of Congress and goes against 70% of Americans. It was undertaken clearly in bad faith. This is not normal. I am not yawning because its another test by Trump et al of our tolerance for a breaking down our so-called "democratic norms," like caging children and putting sexual offenders in the administration staff or the Supreme Court. What would it actually take, Ross, to get you past the eye roll?
2
Trump said he'd do something about "Legal" immigration and instead we end up with two more Slovenians here, his in-laws. Trump said he'd do something about "anchor" babies and change the 14th Amendment. Still nothing on those fronts...
2
Indeed. The other side always made it worse before. The devil is always at the other side of the fence - pun intended. The egregious is always justified when it is on my side. How instructive, Mr. Douthat!
2
So Obama was at least consistent and competent in using the pen to advance his agenda, while Trump has been amazingly incompetent, let alone inconsistent. Let me ask, Douthat -- did Obama go out of his way to disrespect not just Congress but the clear, plain language of the Constitution? Has Trump?
4
this columnist betrays his Obama-hating prejudices here - in NO WAY can one compare Obama's regulatory rule-making on environmental policy or healthcare to Trump's out and out self-funding of the "Wall" without Congressional approval.
The only move that comes close is DACA... and that's a far stretch since there, what the president did was to lay down a systematic basis for WHICH of the 11 million immigration law-breakers would be hunted down and prosecuted, given the LIMITED resources available (enough to deport about 500,000 of them). There, the president decided that those who had committed other crimes, we'd hunt down but the others, we'd leave alone. And those who, through no fault of their own had immigrated illegally as children, and were now establishing as productive, contributing members of society, we would not disturb at all on both compassionate and practical grounds.
Give me a break. Douthat can maintain no pretence of rational discourse here, what it is, is partisan braying.
2
Let's at least acknowledge that Obama came to what you call his attempt, by executive action, to play Caesar, because he was not just unable to get his legislative program through a Republican-controlled Congress, that Congress made it apparent, not to put too fine a point on it, they would cut off their patriot's nose to spite their partisan's face. Perhaps the way out of these weeds is for Democrats and Republicans to agree that the most co-equal branch (sic) and the primary source of power in our government is and should be the Congress, and following the horrible example set by that feckless, amoral, ignoramus sitting at the Resolute Desk, that Congress will do two things: (1) restore regular order; (2) stop shirking its responsibility to hold the Executive to account and take up the reins of government initiative; (3) and start leading by principled advocacy for their respective approaches to government, not to drowning the government in the bathtub, but by actually governing for the benefit of the people.
1
Of course it is the same to protect endangered human beings and to built a wall with federal money while the health and roads and education of poor Americans are on decline. While children die from water pollution and poor water supplies, a wall is built to prevent a ghost invasion. Mothers cope with hard work inside and outside home while autistic governments spend money on Chinese Great Walls (we/some of us/ know how useful that wall was). The moral relativism of the article stenches of oily Vatican structures.
1
Nothing happens in a vacuum and Obama's efforts that you deem so deplorable were the result of a Republican congress that failed it most basic constitutional duties - like letting Obama carry out his constitutional duty to fill a vacated Supreme Court seat. Facts and circumstances matter more than dogma.
2
I’m not so concerned about precedence for this action by Trump as normal presidents have the common sense to apply the brakes because they are both competent and like Obama, not prone to corruption.
In my view, this national emergency should be of concern about Trump and the kinds of real harm he can do in the future over the next two years of manufactured crisis,let alone the possibility of 6 more years.
Because Trump is both incompetent and corrupt, Congress needs to check and balance His authority to fake a crisis.
1
Yes, exactly what I have been telling my friends...So far, gross incompetence is saving this country from our current drift into populism unleashed. Just think what Mitch McConnell would be doing with the same executive tools at his disposal.
I'm not sure how Trump's actions could be less dangerous than Obama's, given that Obama faced a spiteful opposition Congress who gloated over blocking even legitimate actions and Trump couldn't convince a House and Senate of the same party to give him what he wanted (despite toddler tantrums).
3
Are you sure, Mr. Douthat, that you're not letting your conservatism color your normally very clear vision? "Clown" Trump has serious support amongst conservatives, and a SCOTUS packed to his liking. You may underestimate the hostility that many conservatives hold toward democracy. I've been opposed to impeachment, even to Special Counsels, but this, IMHO, is the most impeachable thing BigDonnie has done.
2
Ah, the morality just below the surface of Douthat's comparison between Trump's and Obama's executive overreach shines through. Trump grabs power to prevent the poor and abused from shelter while Obama tried to advance what.......environmental rehabilitation, healthcare for more Americans, and protection of Dreamers. The proudly medieval Catholic heart of Douthat shines (sic) through too.
2
Caesarism? Perhaps not. Maybe Putinism is a more apt description.
Not just as a reflection of Trump as a puppet or Trump's affinity for kleptocracy, but as a statement of purported values:
"Many Euro-Atlantic countries [that] have moved away from ethical principles and their traditional identity: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. Policies are being pursued that place a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership on the same level, a faith in God and a belief in Satan."
- Vladimir Putin 2013
Sounds like something Trump would say, or at least try to read off of a teleprompter. Not very different than standard GOP fare to divide and distract.
Sure, Trump's underlying philosophy may be better described simply as "Me! More! Mine!". But that makes him more like Putin rather than less.
Trump is America's first pro Russian pro Authoritarian president. He may not be nearly as competent as Putin. But Trumpism does have 80%+ support among Republicans. Would rebranded Putinism fare much worse?
1
Pretending Trump is less dangerous because he's incompetent is a bit of a gamble. Sure, I've stopped reading all the NYT articles about what would happen if Trump did X because they seem outlandish. Why get upset about something Trump hasn't done yet when there is so much he has done that is upsetting? And then, of course, he actually does said outlandish thing.
Incompetence does not preclude the destruction of the republic.
2
Trump is an effective distraction while Republicans pack the courts with little resistance.
3
I almost have to admire Mr. Douthat's creativity in finding ways to blame liberals for the failures, follies, and brutality of conservatives.
4
The columnist realistically fails to consider that this amoral, narcissistic Fake President, having already bulldozed over long-standing presidential norms, traditions, expectancies, and values, would most likely not hesitate to take drastic, unconstitutional action(s) if his incumbency were to be severely threatened. The present phony declaration of a concocted national emergency is but a foreshadowing of what dictatorial steps Trump would be prepared to take for self-preservation. For example, despite an accumulation of shockingly damning facts that might be contained in a final Mueller report, who can say with assurance that Trump will not attempt to subvert, in numerous ways, the potential political and criminal consequences of that Investigation, particularly when one considers that he commands the fealty of millions and millions of fervent supporters and the subservience of Republicans.
1
It is good that you mention “the decay of republics” for this is what it is all about. Yesterday I told some Canadian friends, “J'ai peur des Américains, » «I am afraid of Americans,” and they all said that they felt the same way. If Canadians are afraid of Americans, just imagine how people in other countries must feel.
2
Re: Mr. Douthat's final paragraph. Make no mistake about it, this is the main event. Whether we harken back to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "creeping gradualism" or some other and more current meme, this President is not merely acceding to the deterioration of constitutional structures and norms. He is driving the MAGA bus (one set of tires in the ditch, etc.) to a point on the horizon where elected officials will not be punished for turning a blind eye toward selective Constitutional compliance. If we wait for another President to engage this opportunistic deconstruction, without taking strong and consequential action to reverse it, we may not even have time to contemplate slouching towards Bethlehem.
P.S.: you guys in Texas got the early worm today.
1
Mr. Douthat's last paragraph in effect says that Congress should turn a blind eye to this turnstyle-jumper and wait until he actually murders someone before taking action.
1
we're lucky trump is so incompetent. if we had an equally unscrupulous but better informed and smarter president we would be in a lot more trouble. as it is, most americans see through trump easily enough to reject him out of hand.
So what happens if Mr. Trump loses re-election and declares a national emergency due to "rampant voter fraud?" I suspect you will see the same pearl-clutching, spineless lack of action by the GOP.
3
Hmmm. I thought, for one brief moment, that Ross had written a column with which I could agree. Nope. Once again, he has let his yearning for a conservative nirvana overwhelm his observations and reasoning.
Yes, Ross, this is a crisis for no reason other than the sheer frivolity of the reason for Trump’s brazen power grab. If it is not slapped down universally, then there will be no one left to respect and defend the constitution, and no bulwark against further attacks on all fronts.
You know better than to minimize this issue and thereby defend this president.
2
Obama expanded executive power because Mitch McConnell tried to nullify his election victory at every turn. Remember his timeless comment in 2008, with the country in an economic free fall and jobs being lost daily? “My goal is to make him a one term president”? That is why Obama had to use executive power, the Republicans tried to nullify his presidency. Bush expanded power because he knew he was doing things that were borderline illegal, Trump doesn’t care if they are illegal
L, because he is a criminal himself. The limp caudillo is McConnell, as he abuses power in a purely calculating and autocratic fashion for his party, and his party only. When it clashes with Trump, he meekly acquiesces and changes his tune.
159
@Bob Ditch Mitch Kentucky.
9
@oversteer
Everybody concentrates on McConnell, they’re forgetting the chief enabler and trump’s number one lapdog lindsey graham!
11
The difference is that Obama used his presidential pen to further the common good once he was stymied and obstructed at every turn by a Republican Congress.
12
Ross Douthat's position is, like most so called Republicans, is that Republicans are always right, anyone else is always wrong, no matter what the voters say.
8
@Ragnar Midtskogen - Ross Douthat believes in the theory " if my guy does it then it's right, if your guy does it then it's wrong". Of course he will try to side step this theory but attempting to do a "head fake" like this column.
Just to be clear, with respect to Obama's regulatory rulemaking on climate and healthcare:
- on healthcare, the Supreme Court upheld 6-3 Obama's ruling that despite the garbled language in the ACA, that tax credits for ACA policies were legitimate in states that did not offer their own marketplaces
- on environment and climate change, while the Supreme Court did rule against the EPA 5-4 that the EPA exceeded its authority in its rule to regulate mercury emissions from coal power plants, incurring $9B/yr in compliance costs since (somehow) it wasn't entitled to count co-benefits of $35 - 70 billion/ year in health cost reductions from particulate emissions and sulfur, that court ruling went against all common sense and any reasonable reading of the clean air acts. It could only be supported by someone who was antagonistic to the end purpose of the clean air acts and in the pockets of dirt-bag polluters (most power companies in fact have higher ethical standards than that)
8
" ... I just can’t imagine anyone looking at the political train wreck of Trump’s unilateralism and seeing a precedent worth invoking."
But isn't that the point of your column -- that, indeed , it is happening now?
1
In order to downplay Trump's clearly illegal and unconstitutional action, Ross must completely mischaracterize Obama's action. I leave it to others to decide for themselves whether he is writing from ignorance or malice. (I know which I would vote for.)
But for the benefit for anyone who really doesn't understand what DACA was, I will try to explain it as simply as I can. There is a process, defined by law, for deporting illegal immigrants. That process involves law enforcement and courts, all of which cost a certain amount of money. Money which according to the Constitution can only be authorized by Congress. The President CAN NOT legally spend any more money on that process than what Congress provides. So when Congress provides the President with enough money to handle a certain number of deportations, a number which was far LESS than the number of illegal immigrants, the job of the President is to PRIORITIZE how to spend that money. Obama quite logically and reasonably decided to focus his resources on the most dangerous criminal elements, rather than wasting limited resources on those who pose no threat. NOTHING about DACA changed any law or defied any action of Congress. Congress always had the Constitutional authority to provide the resources to increase the number of deportations. It was Congress' choice not to do that, not Obama's
19
One glaring omission: to the frustration of most liberals, President Obama spent his entire first term, and about half of his second, working to compromise with Republicans, adapting their proposals, inviting them to the White House, conferencing with them. And each time, Republicans went out of their way to reject and attempt to humiliate the president.
There is still one side that is willing to negotiate and compromise, and it isn't the Republicans.
11
Presidential power has been expanding for decades, as commentators on both the right and the left have observed, and Republican presdients have been at least as complicit in this as have their Democratic counterparts. But Trump's most recent transgression in this area is not so bad because he's splitting his party?!? Where is the evidence of that?? Some "serious conservatives" may object to his national-emergency declaration, but Douthart tellingly doesn't say "most conservatives," and certainly not "most Republicans." And that's because opposition from these groups is the same as with almost all of Trunp's other assaults on democracy: non-existent. A few GOP legislators have expressed their "concern," but if the past few years are any indication, even fewer will translate that into actual opposition. (And let's see how the Supreme Court votes when the wall-funding debate finally reaches it.) Finally, if Obama's actions in the face of consistent, open, hostile and precedent-upending opposition from congressional Republicans - Merrick Garland, anyone? - are evidence of "caesarism," then how would Douthart label THEIR actions? Brutusism? Cassiusism? The "caesarism" coinage is ridiculously hyperbolic, and makes as much sense as Douthart's claim that Obama's imperial power-grabs infuriated voters so much that they elected someone who actually talks and acts more like a demogugue than any president or congressional leader in American history.
7
Mr Douthat basically says there’s nothing to see here folks, just move along. He “can’t imagine anyone looking at the political train wreck of Trump’s unilateralism and seeing a precedent worth invoking.” But, that’s precisely the point. If he can do this based upon facts from an alternative reality with the support of his party, that’s the standard. And, so far the train wreck exists only in Mr Douthat’s mind. McConnell votes yes.
8
This fails to mention that Obama was working against an unprecedented level of Republican obstructionism. If I recall correctly, in Obama's first two years there were more filibusters than in the entire history of the Senate. Once Republicans took back the House after Obama's first two years, his presidency was essentially over except for what he could manage with executive orders. It is not honest to talk about Obama's "caesarism" without discussing the behavior of Republicans that drove him to it. I personally believe that what Republicans did and continue to do rises to the level of disloyalty.
16
Ross Douthat says that Trump's "caesarism" will fail because it has divided the party. But the jury is out on that. His earlier comments notwithstanding, McConnell has come out in support, and so has Lindsay Graham. Others will follow.
Republicans may grumble about overreach, but it is not at all clear that they will vote to oppose Trump. Which means they will vote to support him.
This is what American authoritarianism looks like. Not at all a pretty picture.
11
Well said. Congress and the courts can either legislate or look to the constitution to hold Presidential over reach in check. I think of greater consequence was Harry Reid’s abandonment of the 60 votes majority requirement for federal judicial appointments. It was one of the last traditions to help achieve compromise. Yes, it was frustrating that Republicans were blocking so many nominees. Was the country in danger? Why not make some deals? Sure you got more liberal judges on the courts for a few years. Now the tables are turned and more conservative judges are being confirmed. The result is a polarized and politicized judiciary calling for John Roberts to try and publicly support the concept of an independent judiciary. Hopefully, someday a wise Senate majority leader will turn back the clock.
2
Trump declaring an emergency at the border was really the only thing he could have done to escape the corner he had painted himself in. I'm sure that court cases and other strategies designed to slow the wall building process will not bother Trump a wit. He'll have placated his base just long enough to maybe even make it to 2020.
2
Thank you for this thoughtful column.
You make good points about cesarean and other republic destroying behaviors.
2
The Senate will take no action with regard to Trump’s emergency declaration. Trump is correct that SCOTUS will, eventually, vote his way. But let’s be clear. Trump could just as easily have walked out Friday and announced that he was removing $5.7 billion from the defense budget and was having it deposited into an offshore bank account in his wife’s name because “I felt like it”. The Senate would STILL take no action and SCOTUS would, eventually, vote his way. And Douthat would do his latest “whataboutism” dance where he expressed modest disapproval of Trump while pointing out that Obama/Clinton/Kennedy/Roosevelt etc. were much worse. And THAT is the state of our “republic” as we live in a real world version of the movie Groundhog Day.
41
The problem is the law that Congress wrote. It gives the president virtually unlimited authority to declare an emergency based on nothing more than his own determination. Such a law is void for vagueness.
But instead of revising the National Emergencies Act, we see Congress working on a bill of disapproval that Donald won't sign.
This problem is not Obama's or even Donald's. It's Mitch McConnell's.
20
@Occupy Government
Jeez! some bad laws have crept onto the books over recent decades.
One of the huge tasks, post Trump, will be to tighten and clarify existing laws as well as codifying and making actual laws to define all those norms, traditions, and protocols on which the separation of powers rest that Trump has gleefully destroyed.
Obama was using discretion inevitably granted him in a country where budgets are limited -- limited by Congress! Trump declared an emergency to spend money not granted him at all.
20
The difference, in heaven's transparent name, between Obama's resourcefulness and Trump's infinite clumsiness makes it very hard to exploit Douthat's dislike of the previous Presidency as a predicate for the present infamy. Presidential "reach" is at least as ancient as Jefferson's Administration, and Presidential repression is at least as ancient as Adams'. If anything, you could say that Trump is simply pursuing Jim Polk's diplomacy with Mexico, to make us all, except Douthat, a Thoreau.
5
"I had no problem with President Obama’s caesarism ...
It might be remembered that Congress opposed Mr. Obama’s every move."
Gemli, it is not the job of Congress to give the president whatever he wants, whether it be Obama trying to help illegal immigrants or Trump trying to build a wall. You know this as well as I do. Yet, as the above words indicate, your partisan zeal to some extent overrides your respect of the rule of law. If you oppose Trump's overreach, take him to court. The Republicans should have done that with Obama. We cannot continue down this path in which political objectives are used to justify procedural shortcuts. Those procedures are in place for a reason.
9
@RSP republicans did take obama to court, which overturned many of his initiatives
@RSP
So you're okay with McConnell's arrogating imperial power to himself, then? Using procedures he put in place, for his own reasons?
Typical Douthat sophistry and hypocrisy. Obama's executive orders (he declared no national emergencies for spurious reasons) were attempts to deal with real problems where action was being blocked by the Republican controlled congress for no other reason than that he was a Democratic president. Most if not all advanced the public good and had moral overtones (Douthat is big on Christian morality). The equivalence with Trump's blatant disregard of constitutional proprieties couldn't be more marked.
43
@John You forgot to mention Obama's skin color, which probably had more to do with the Republican obstructionism than his party affiliation.
@John I couldn't agree more. The equivalency between Obama and Trump makes no sense.
Thank you. You took the words right out of my mouth, and statedthem more eloquently than my simmering rage would allow.
In Canada too we have an imperial prime minister. The way the government is doing it is very simple. Every year the House of Commons has to adopt a budget for the fiscal year. Then the House of Commons has to vote on a bill to implement the budget. Since the 1990s the government is using that bill to put in it all kind of legislations which as noting to do with the budget. This practice started with the Chrétien (Lib) government (1993-2003), and was expended by the Harper (Cons) government (2006-2015) and is still used by the Trudeau (Lib) government (2015-20...). And like in the USA the members of Parliament (MP) are quiet when it is used by the own party and outrage when it is used by the other party. So if the MPs in Canada and the member of Congress in the USA are not constant in the defence of their prerogative, we got basically a Bonapartists system in which the executive totally dominates the legislative part of the government.
4
The comparison with Obama is moot. This has been a trend for several decades; it has simply worsened recently. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Douthat. Just because something is clumsy, does not render it ineffective. The only measure here will be if it works. Will Congress finally do their job? If they don't, we are on a steep downhill slide. It is my hope that Congress finally wakes up -- both parties.
15
What is completely overlooked is that actions taken by Obama were in response to Mitch McConnell and some others in GOP Congress abdicating responsibility to the country by inaction to take up votes.
Trump outlines guidelines for signable legislation. Congressional negotiators meet that bar and then in bad faith Trump declares an emergency with the assistance/ aquiecence of Mitch McConnell and some others.
The GOP is the problem here. No more false equivalency. You have lost my respect Ross.
59
@This Just In
Yes, Obama’s behavior was in response to McConnell’s disgusting priority of trying to make Obama “be a failure”.
But although I understand, we still have the problem that President’s are using emergency power when it isn’t something like a Pearl Harbor, 9/11 or other sudden catastrophic event.
It is a worrisome trend—and especially vile in latest iteration by Trump.
1
@Jean. The only solution to poor representation and and the gerrymandering is to inspire unexpected people to act own a piece of this country and Vote.
@This Just In, It's pretty clear now, from Bush's multi-debacles to the obstructions under Obama to Trump's ascendency as Idiot King, that the republican party is off the rails. It has swept up the selfish rich, the racists and sexists, the sheepy evangelicals, and made a Frankenstein monster to ultimately serve an oligarchy that smiles as the nation crumbles. Yes, it's grotesque, it's bizarre. But look at Trump and that is patent.
1
I don't understand Douthat's reasoning. He seems to be saying that because Trump's invocation of a national emergency is such a blatant power grab and aims to accomplish nothing of real value, it sets a less dangerous precedent than Obama's ostensibly more skillful attempt to protect Dreamers, something really worth doing. I share Douthat's worries about the steady shift of power to the executive branch since 9/11, but I don't understand how Trump's blatant power grab, if not effectively checked by congress, can be seen as anything but the most dangerous step so far in that progression. The powers accorded the executive branch in a national emergency go well beyond those Obama attempted to exercise.
35
@Ralph M Berry The current remedy against presidential over reach is simple. Send the President a veto proof bill forbidding him this executive order or denying him the right to make this emergency declaration (even changing the law about emergency declarations by a President. Congress should start doing its job and giving up its Constitutional powers to the President. As a Senator Mc Cain said, Congress should get back to regular order. Mitch McConnell in his zeal against Democrats, elected ones, denies the voters who put them there the right to have a Supreme Court appointment, also an abuse of power.
8
congress shall pass no ex-post facto laws.
An astonishing and wonderful final paragraph.
1
The difference between Obama and Trump's use of executive power is the use of FACTS. Obama did not make up facts about immigration or the environment or health. He grounded his policy decisions in facts so that even if you disagreed with the means, at least you could have a reasonable and informed debate about critical issues affecting the lives of every American (by the way, Ross, environmental protection and access to health care are good things). Perhaps Obama "persuaded Democrats and the media" with a good dose of reality. Trump, on the other hand, is lying his way to executive power. That is the classic play of a dictatorship. Truth is the Rubicon.
35
Let’s use “precedent” in its legal sense: once the Supreme Court validates the action, probably in a 5-4 vote breaking on the usual lines, then there will be PRECEDENT favoring the imperial presidency.
11
Another reality according to Ross which takes the past and rejiggers it to suit his skewed point of view. Now lets bring some facts into Ross' perversion of history.
Obama was democratically elected by a majority of the country and won the Electoral College but McConnell famously said that the Republicans number one job was making sure he was a one term president. He was famously obstructionist and destructive to our democracy and the Republicans proudly elected officials with a "No compromise" platform - a truly cynical and undemocratic stance. Right wing media (including Ross) found every moment to declare him either incompetent and weak or power hungry - what I call the feckless dictator.
He wanted to work on immigration, deporting millions, but still ended up in the eyes of the right being for open borders.
Yes, Obama made executive orders that may have been outside the traditional norms of the presidency but the Congress was not doing their job in any capacity. The branch had been polluted with trying to overturn Obamacare and denying confirmation of any judges and not even attempting to find compromise on a whole raft of measures Obama had campaigned on.
Trump controlled every branch of government and couldn't get a wall and now has turning it into a national emergency which is truly grabbing at powers explicitly stated in the Constitution that he doesn't have.
But Ross is happy because he is mentioned in others writing making him important and noteworthy.
57
@Lucas Lynch
Douthat takes his OPINION column as if it were factial. It's just his opinion. But the difference is that his opinions are written down in a column and will be there in perpetuity.
Caveat Ross.
1
@Lucas Lynch
Ross, you never disapoint. Your inability to distinguish between republicans and Democrats is astonishing. To speak of President Obama and the faker tRump in the same paragraph and equivicate about their declarations is proof of your bias.
1
There is the slight distinction that Trump's views, supported by many many Repubicans, are founded on white supremacism and morally septic, while those of Mr. Obama came from an inherent goodness of character and purpose. Other than that, I suppose there is the rather abstract similarity of assuming a presidential power, not constitutionally explicit.
25
The Republican Party did not act in the national interest when Obama was president. They did not favor a stimulus policy to get the economy out of its worse collapse since the Great Depression. They stated they were concerned about deficits. Once they passed the tax law they became chicken Hawks not deficit Hawks. McConnell acted in unconstitutional manner by not allowing Obama to appoint a justice to the court. No Republican senator opposed this.
When Trump attacks the press, most Republicans and conservative pundits remain mute. They do not challenge his constant daily lies. Senator Collins and other Republicans will discuss their anguish but will roll over like bowling pins regarding his declaration of a national emergency.
71
Today is Sunday, and I am expecting a pair of New Balance sneakers from Amazon, which will be delivered by the USPS.
There was a time in this country when we could count on Fundamentalists to strongly object to the desecration of the Lord’s Day.
Alas and alack, that day is now no more.
Trump’s supporters now appear to be just as interested in their packages as the rest of us, even when they enrich Trump’s arch enemy, Mr. Bezos.
9
Indeed there are practical and constitutional issues in Trump's "executive" order (in quotes because it precariously assumes it comes from an executive in reality, not just in law, which clearly he is not). What's missing from reverend Douthat's analysis, as has been pointed out elsewhere in comments, is Trump's vs. Obama's motives. President Obama tried to create a place for people in need - in need of healthcare, sanctuary, safety. Drumpf is simply trying to continue the greedy, self aggrandizement that has characterized his whole life. Reverend Douthat's analysis misses the moral component of these two different sets of actions. Too bad even the most self proclaimed moralists among us cannot distinguish between them. Trump never met a law, convention, or norm he was unwilling to trash for his own profit. The Republucans who support this, similarly have yet to meet a Trump initiative, that is, power grab, they are are willing to stand up against. Mr. Douthat, by proferring this false equivalence, joins that supine group.
48
Today is Sunday, and I am expecting a pair of New Balance sneakers from Amazon, which will be delivered by the USPS.
There was a time in this country when we could count on Fundamentalists to strongly object to the desecration of the Lord’s Day.
Alas and alack, that day is now no more.
Trump’s supporters now appear to be just as interested in their packages as the rest of us, even when enrich Trump’s arch enemy,
Mr. Bezos.
1
... even when they enrich Trump’s arch enemy,
Mr. Bezos.
1
Every time that Congress does not at as a countervailing body, this is what you get.
In the case of Obama, McConnell, Boehner and Ryan pledged to tie Obama's hands any which way they could. First they declare that they would make sure Obama was a one term President. Then the the three of them, along with the Republican Congress worked against the ACA, even though it was in the interest of bringing much needed health care to the millions of people who had no access at all too McConnell denying Obama his right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to replace Antonin Scalia after his death.
Scalia, as you may remember helped Cheney, and Rumsfeld to convince George W. Bush to invade Iraq by convincing him there were Weapons of Mass Destruction. Scalia was responsible for backing up the false findings of Cheney and Rumsfeld.
In Trump's case, Republicans are not stopping him in declaring a National Emergency because of a so-called "crisis". In fact it was McConnell who made the Devil's pack with Trump that if Trump did not veto the budget, then McConnell would support the National Emergency Crisis.
The dictionary describes a "crisis" as a "time of intense difficulty, trouble or danger"". I would propose that the National Emergency crisis is Trump, his Administration, and the Republicans in Congress. They are the ones making sure that they have an Imperial Presidency and Congress. The worst part is that the voters allowed this to happen. 2020 won't come soon enough.
31
"...on immigration he [Obama] made a more dramatic leap — claiming a power he himself had previously abjured, and offering a provisional legal status to about half the illegal-immigrant population"
The USCIS estimated the DACA population in the US at 699,700 and the latest estimates of total "illegal-immigrant population" are 10.7 million.
That works out to 6.5% which is pretty far from "about half" claimed by Mr. Douthat. This kind of Trumpian exaggeration to make a point about Obama as a new Caesar is typical of the hysterical rhetoric on which the current "national emergency" is based.
I believe a correction or clarification is in order.
42
It’s important to remember that creeping fascism is a product of many MANY administrations dating back at least to World War II.
It is important to remember that creeping fascism has been supported by the mainstream leadership of both parties.
It is important to remember that creeping fascism in the US since WWII has also been opposed by important leaders in both parties.
It is important to remember all this, not ‘simply’ to build any phony bipartisan comity.
It is important to remember all this because the tendencies toward fascism are very powerful, very structural, and very human - and the struggle against illegitimate and destructive domination will always be a never ending one.
9
How many differences can one illuminate? Trump is doing this for personal gain and self aggrandizement. Trump’s request had a fair hearing and a bipartisan rejection in Congress. Obama made his decision about public policy with which most people agreed, and with no personal gain. The GOP simply refused to do it’s job as a branch of government.
It was the GOP that broke government for the past 4 years, not Obama.
63
@Bob TOG
His wall project was dead in Congress even when his own party was in control. Barack Obama got the ACA when he had his two years of majorities. And those were slim majorities.
You do touch on an important difference: Trump is pushing a widely unpopular idea with his use of this issuance. Another important difference is that this is a much more severe declaration than an executive order. Additionally, President Obama was forced to rely on executive orders because often the only problem with his policy initiatives, in the eyes of the Republicans and the McConnell crowd, was that they came from Mr. Obama. Their antipathy toward him seethed barely concealed beneath the surface as they ignored or actively thwarted important efforts at job creation, infrastructure investment and health care reform; disdaining in essence, "the general welfare, and ... the blessings of liberty", of the American people for purely political reasons.
If one honestly looks at this history, then it was not Obama but McConnell who paved the way for this dangerous man who feels his bruised ego constitutes a national emergency. Here you have missed the most important lesson of the moment. In the end, the national emergency is the man himself, not anything he has so weakly claimed.
61
@totyson
Well put. You know that Ross couldn't bear to accept that this "national emergency" fiasco is entirely the fault of the GOP. It had to be that dastardly Obama!
Party of personal responsibility? My foot.
Seems obvious to myself, simply from observation, the US has far more folks who benefit from legal and illegal immigrants, than those who find a deterrent. As we willingly create a major underclass, people lose interest in hearing about drugs , illegals gaming the system, etc. Our service sector relies on low paid jobs. Possibly we could import all our fruits and vegetables to cut back immigrant labor needs, but that would probably increase the cost of fruits and vegetables . Discouraging folks from immigrating to the US is the best deterrent, as in if you're not classed a A or B we don't want you.We need get over the old Ellis Island syndrome. Europeans don't come anymore, and if they do, it is usually to make a buck, and go back where they came from at some point. As long as we are always in wars in the Middle East , Muslims coming in raises fears, a tiny % may harm Americans, i:e: look at Germany,France, Belgium etc.And those countries are bit players in our wars.Reluctant at that.Net is legal and illegal immigration need be debated for what it really is, not like we would wish it was. It is no fairy tale, or like Ellis Island.
3
Apart from the merits of Trump’s policy, where Trump differs wildly from Obama’s executive orders is that he is usurping congress’s most fundemental role, that is the power of the purse. Obama created policy based on congressional inaction (DACA) while Trump is creating “policy” in the face of congressional ACTION. He is in defiance of congress. And on its face, it is a profound first step toward tyranny.
As for Obama, his DACA as an executive order is akin to Trump’s Muslim ban. Most people were worried about the merits of the policy, not about it being an executive branch power grab.
23
So it's the Democrats who have denied Mr. Trump his wall? For two years Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress. If they had wanted to, they could have given Mr. Trump his wall.
34
Call it 'caudillo,' call it 'caesarism,' call it whatever you want to call it, it still requires the consensual approval of all branches of government to succeed. Yet what's truly different about this current iteration is that it involves, at the highest and deepest levels of our democracy, the subversive involvement of our most formidable sworn enemy.
25
Mr. Douthat,
I would like to hear your thoughts on the Republican Party which went along with McConnell's tactics in denying a hearing to a duly nominated Supreme Court Justice, and now seems to be allowing the usurpation of Congressional prerogatives by McConnell who has said that he will not do anything to stop the SCP from declaring this "emergency" because he did not win a political fight.
The SCP will be gone soon, but the Republicans will still be with us.
24
It’s a mystery to me why Trump has not yet published a book containing all of his Tweets, including expensive leather-bound editions and a version for Kindle, if Mr. Bezos will allow it.
The book would be an instant best-seller all around the world and would occupy a place of honor next to the Holy Bible in the homes of millions of his fundamentalist admirers.
Some kind of a tie-in with the Gideon people who place bibles in hotel rooms could assure good sales for many years to come, as well as rich laughter in many of Trump’s hotel rooms.
Naturally, he will be continuing his tweeting, so publishing this now would present him with the opportunity to put out additional editions in the future.
As the star of Trump University and The Apprentice, he earned considerable respect and admiration as a con-artist, so why is he missing out on this very excellent opportunity now?
17
@A. Stanton
Trump is counting on everyone having as short a memory as he does.
He tweets his thoughts of the moment and doesn't want them memorialized to be read for years to come.
As is he has plausible deniability. Well, he'll deny anything and everything anyway so the fact that the written evidence is there won't bother him or stop him from denying he said spmething.
Hmmm, on second thought, if he thinks he'll make money - expect Trump's Tweets on a book list soon.
1
@A. Stanton- Although I hate your idea, it's FANTASTIC. Thanks. G
The comparison between Obama's and Trump's behavior is a stretch. The situation perhaps fits within a weak analogy fallacy. Obama had values beyond personal gain and mirror-gazing. Given the temporal proximity, I am not surprised by the comparisons.
It is difficult, while living in this morass, to sort the details. Maybe future historians will have a better overview.
17
I couldn’t agree more with Douthat’s assessment - hopeful as it may be - that Trump’s efforts to expand executive privilege may end up in Congress acting to restrain the president more forcefully than we’ve seen in previous Administrations. Where I question Douthat is on his hopefulness.
For years, we the people have allowed the Federal government - through the President, the Congress, the Judiciary and the ‘Administrative State’ - to vastly and unconstitutionally expand central government powers to the detriment of our republican government, the rights of the states and, most importantly, the rights of the citizens. I’m afraid one stint of an overreaching yet ham-handed president like Trump will merely check for a brief time the continued expansion of excessive centralization.
We need significant reforms to bring our governance in line with the Constitution. Barring that, we need a re-assertion of states’ rights. Barring that we need to re-consider the ability of states and regions to secede from the union, similar to a Brexit.
If we cannot avail ourselves of such options, we the American people risk revolution or, worse yet, disintegration and eventual overlordship by some stronger nation-state, such as China or Mexico.
3
"For presidential power to meaningfully expand, it is not enough for a president to simply make a power grab. That grab needs to unite his party (ideally it would also divide the opposition), it needs to be cloaked in enough piety and deniability to find support from would-be referees, it needs to appear to be politically successful, and finally it needs to be ratified by the other branches of government, if only by their inaction."
This is what I find most disturbing about Douthat's column. That's his and the Republicans' view of politics--as if it were a contest, some kind of a perverse sport, completely divorced from the good of the country. The voters, the rest of us, are mere pawns to be manipulated while the "winning" playbook is pursued to the achievement of power. Do that long enough, as the GOP has done since at least Reagan, and Donald Trump is the result. Democracy? What democracy?
I feel an attack of nausea coming on, Mr. Douthat.
26
There are benefits to the upending of the presidency.
What if the next president is a woman? No matter how she performs, she won't be autocratic and she won't be worse than Trump. Presto...the presidency will have been rescued. This is not being cynical. The presidency has been inflated far beyond its originally intended status as head of the executive branch. (I would blame the journalism profession for this.) It needs to be pruned back to its roots and the Trump presidency, in effect, is a preparation for this, not the beginnings of autocracy.
And, into the bargain, the Trump White House has paved the way for realignment of the role of the president's spouse. By receding into the background, Melania has made it possible for the husband of the first woman president to just be himself instead of being forced to perform as the minor half of a quasi-royal couple.
4
Trump is to Presidents as Douthat is to Times columnists.
Not content to combat his own skewed strawmen, Douthat misrepresents or ignores previous, egregious presidential overreaches with lasting effect.
Consider, for example, Lyndon Johnson's role in affirmatively misleading Congress into enacting the Tonkin Gulf resolution and thereafter, through a pattern of prevarication, exploiting that resolution beyond any congressional intent.
Nixon and Kissinger continued and expanded the deception with actions and expenditures unnauthorized by Congress but easily discoverable with Congressional diligence.
Between 1964 and 1973, the imperial presidents succeeded not only in causing death and devastation on a scale not seen since WWII but also in seducing, co-opting, and ultimately corrupting several levels of the US military leadership. (I spent nearly four of these years flying fighter aircraft into North Vietnam, Laos, and, on occasion, Cambodia and saw the institutional impact first hand.)
Today, as Trump lies about the national emergency and proclaims that the military will build his wall with diverted funds, we will wait to see whether commanders decline unlawful orders or behave like the senior officers described by H.R. McMaster in "Dereliction of Duty."
13
Ross Douthat is--once again--so wickedly articulate, so dangerously reasonable, that one might miss some of the crucial, underlying differences between the executive actions President Obama took and the puerile autocracy of the current pseudo-President this week. Let's name three--there could be more. First, pre-eminently, the avowed purpose and legislative (non-)practice of Republican-controlled processes during long stretches of both Obama terms was to suppress committee work, prevent conference committee negotiation, and deny floor votes on initiatives that were set out in good faith, and with significant policy rationales. Talk about passive aggressive despotism--refusing to function as a deliberative and decision-making body in order to thwart the Executive. (Even if that thwarted...democracy!) Second, with respect to the current morass, there is simply no precedent in the prior Administration (or any other) in which an executive action constituted an OVERRIDE of TWO duly negotiated bills that were--torturously--delivered by the Congress. Finally, and perhaps most critically, Trump's little caudillo rhetoric--cynically discounting the legitimate functions and hard work of the legislative branch--bears no resemblance to Obama's patient, if pained, acknowledgment of the balance of powers. I believe that Ross, in his own sophisticated/sophist way, is grossly underestimating the damage Trump is doing, while he (like Trump) gets his post-game digs in on Obama.
39
@BB very well stated. I found hid apologia for the flagrant Bush abuses telling. Just because there were not many demonstrations against the Patriot Act and related usurpations does no excuse them. If this is a result of that evil Obama, why stop there?
I have no argument with Mr. Douthat’s characterization of Trump’s competence. Or, his notion that Trump is effectively providing a road map to future competent autocrats.
But, if a duly elected President and duly elected members of Congress are philosophical polar opposites, should the government just enter stasis until the next election cycle? What, in fact, does the “will of the people” mean when we have these kinds of political outcomes?
Whether the pendulum swings towards an imperial executive, or towards an imperial legislature, I fear for our democracy for three reasons. First is the public’s short attention span, the disregard of the scientific method, and the susceptibility of capture by charismatic, but morally flawed leaders that promise easy solutions. Second, the government seems unable to divine and express the majority will of the people; and unable to formulate and express resultant public policy in a coherent way to help solve big, complex, long-term issues. Our media-driven, never-ending political cycles ensure that government actors rarely focus on long-term structural problems. Finally, third, is the undue political influence now accorded by law to non-human (corporate) interests. As corporate wealth continues to accumulate, the self-interests of these corporations will further unbalance and warp the will of the people and our government.
14
The constitution says that Congress appropriates and the president administers; a president cannot dip into appropriated funds as if it is his personal petty cash drawer. What Obama did on immigration--despite the hyperventilation of conservatives--is fundamentally different than what Trump is trying to do. Obama used his discretion as the executive to administer the laws. That's his job as president and it's well within constitutional order. Trump is making an extra-constitutional power grab by repurposing money that congress has appropriated for other purposes. That's why the courts will certainly strike down this unlawful action.
18
" ... how a more dangerous would-be autocrat might act." Trump is that autocrat: this first 'emergency' is the prelude to more - by him; likely followed by martial law (suspended election?) - welcomed by the GOP.
10
I think you're missing a key point, Ross. The Constitution declares that all federal expenditures must originate with the House of Representatives. Trump's scheme to divert funds from destinations clearly designated by Congress to an entirely different destination of his choosing steals Congressional authority and hands it to the Executive. Nothing Obama (or Bush) did reached anywhere near such a rewriting of the Constitution. If you read the documents surrounding the adoption of our Constitution, you'll see that one thing the founders agreed on (and almost the only thing) was fear of concentrated power in the Executive, especially when it came to spending the people's money.
24
@pterrie
What I would like to know is who is advising Trump to follow through on the mindbogglingly dictatorial notions he dreams up in his endless hours of executive time.
Of course, now that he's had installed that $50,000 simulated golf room ( I read that he paid for it himself, I hope so ) his time will hang less heavy and he'll undoubtedly watch less Fox News. But is it Ivanka or Jared who is telling hom to go ahead?
Everyone should re-read that charming and prescient tale by Hans Christian Andersen " The Emporor's New Clothes." Everyone in Trump's current circle is advising him that his ideas are unique and worthy. They aren't.
9
Wow, I am truly amazed at Conservatives who wiggle their way around our values to find ways to approve of Trumps horrendous actions. All this scenario called for is utter condemnation. Mister Trump has been given a full debate in both houses of Congress on his Wall issue. President Obama did not get the same courtesy at all. So how can one be the same as the other. Obama was forced to find other ways to deal with the Dreamers because Congress didn’t even try on the issue. Trump has been given a full airing in Congress and just didn’t like the outcome. So he’s trying to end run the Constitution to get his way. Yeah that’s better.
31
@David Gifford
That's the Republican way to do things when they're afraid to lose any power to a despot. They can't bring themselves to admit in public and on the record, as evidenced by Douthat's wiggling around till that last paragraph.
They may rightfully fear the repercussions of the bully in chief but that just makes them self- serving cowards.
I just hope the resolve smart, sane people have now continues to strengthen into 2020 so we can throw the bums out.
1
I guess we will see if Trump's "emergency" produces a political train wreck. My fear is that it will not.
If the unthinkable happens and Trump is re-elected, future presidents will have all constraints removed. Already there are suggestions that the action is helping improve his popularity. I'm not sure why that would be if the polls of opinion about the wall are valid.
Obama's executive orders were not declarations of national emergencies. Trump has used similar declarations as did George W Bush. It's hard to see how they have led inexorably to what Trump just did.
Trump seems certain that the Supreme Court will give him a favorable ruling on this. That possibility is frightening.
9
I'm sorry, Mr. Douthat, you can't draw a line from Obama's use of executive orders to Trump's authoritarianism. You also can't gloss over Congress' hostility to Obama and their abject capitulation to Trump.
On immigration, Obama tried to do something even Republican presidents - since Reagan- also tried to do: find a way to control new immigration while granting residency to those already here. He, unlike Trump, had a hostile congress.
Trump controlled House, Senate and White House for 2 years, yet did nothing on immigration, because it suited him not to. He didn't have to resort to executive action on this or on regulations or anything else, but did because he prefers to dictate to people rather than to reason with them.
You don't need to resort to advancing false moral equivalencies. You are better than this.
34
@victor trumper
Well put. I would only stress that unlike Obama, what Trump is doing is a pure and unmitigated political act. Everyone, including Donald (he admitted it) know there is no emergency. Further Donald hasn't, and can't site anything concrete that shows why we need a wall from coast to coast. The icing on the cake is while he doesn't like brown people, personally he is more than happy to have them here illegally because they provide cheap labor at his properties and they are easy to exploit. This entire thing is merely a play to his base.
@victor trumper
Actually if you read him enough, Ross isn't "better than this".
@victor trumper: "You are better than this." Sorry, Victor, is is not.
One of the subtle beauties of the American system is the the Commander In Chief is technically a civilian. Although many have served in the military, it is not a pre-requisite.
And when he is a complete outsider with no military experience, he commands less loyalty or respect than a veteran would.
Trump may order the military to do a great many things, but actually working within the structure will not be so easy, absent their willing cooperation.
5
@Dana Charbonneau
You forget that all of the Military Generals that surrounded Trump lied for him or backed him up in dubious decisions that Trump made. It started with Flynn, then McMaster, Kelly, and Mattis . I would say that they went along with Trump in some of his most outrageous statements and actions. It took all of them quite a while to finally step down. Most left with immense damage done to their credibility and reputations.
1
"President" Trump has far more Caesar-like aspirations and to say that his incompetence thankfully restrains him is a small consolation. Because the next Caesar, seeing the success of Trump's cheap, dishonest, populism, will make sure his Caesarian aspirations are more effective. That Caesar may also have the current GOP's willing compliance and anything-goes standards as a model of tribal support for the next Caesar. You can see the whole package and where this is going
10
@Buoy Duncan
Sounds like Pence to me.
1
This is the time for Congress to tighten the provisions for emergency declarations. Congress has been losing its relevance little by little and it has helped the Executive in its own diminution: from Johnson's Tonkin resolution to Bush's statement that he would not carry out some provisions of a law passed by Congress, to supine obeisance to spurious presidential emergency declarations, the loss of authority is continuous. The Roman senate used to give dictatorial powers to someone in case of national emergency, but it was only during the duration of the emergency. Modern Congress should carefully delimit types and duration of emergency.
This is the opportunityto do it and prevent the downslide.
5
@Frank Casa
Unfortunately it's not possible with this Congress. Without the Republicans kow-towing to Trump in the first place we wouldn't need to put limitations in place.
They're afraid to vote against his whims now do you really think they'll enact laws that do that?
4
I did not like Obama's over reach BUT the motivation was one of progression, ie, improving the lives of undocumented individuals and beginning to confront climate change.
On the other hand, if my memory serves me well, the Affordable Care Act was legislation passed by Congress, it was not an executive order.
Finally, Bush's over reach was really Chaney and it was pure power grab fueled by stoking fear, not to dissimilar to Trump's methods.
Ross, review your history.
29
@Gordon Alderink
Well said. I tried to make the same points but you did it better, and to-the-point.
7
The Caudillo problem has its roots that began decades in the past, when Congress began shirking its duty to govern and began passing blanket legislation giving the Administration wider and wider powers never intended when our nation was formed. It essentially is a cop out giving Congress members a way to avoid making necessary decisions that may not be popular with their funders or require some explanations to voters at home.
11
The nation entered a state of emergency when Mitch led the Republicans in adopting as their goal making Obama a one-term president. This made the sort of governing Obama wanted to do -- dialogue in search of consensus or compromise and the sort of governing designed in the Constitution -- impossible. So he looked for other ways to get things done, which was the correct response to the emergency of government paralysis created by the other side to bring him down.
Now our state of emergency is Trump. The sort of governing our government is designed for is impossible because Trump cannot do it. He does not know how the government works and is not interested in learning. He cannot bargain about details because he does not do details. Rather than winning within a system of checks and balances, he wants to transcend the system and run things by himself as he did in his business ventures.
Obama's so-called abuse of power was a response to the Republican refusal to negotiate reasonably or honestly. Dubya's abuses of power made sense during wartime, except that the war was unnecessary and dubya used his powers to cover up the problems to which his incompetent and unprepared bungling of the war gave rise (if you are going to conquer a country, you have to be prepared to occupy it for a while).
Trump's abuses are something else.
46
I am always astounded at Douthat's Pollyanna view of the world. In this chapter he compares Obama to Trump, to Obama detriment and Trump's minor credit, viewing the Wall overreach as just another step along a road well paved. Perhaps he has forgotten that Obama's conditions were defined by Mitch McConnell's claim, as the 'great legislator, on day one that he would dedicate himself to making Obama a one-term president. The declaration of scorched earth politics before the inauguration party food was cold stands as a beacon of mendacity. Trump has faced nothing like that, rather the reverse he has faced, or been enabled by, a supine congress led by the self-same McConnell, and the feckless Paul Ryan. Only now have the political gods delivered up a House majority that has chosen to exercise its rightful place.
50
Russ Douthat does not get it. He criticizes Obama for abusing executive power. This is qualitatively different from seizing Congressional power. Obama's DHS deferred proceedings against a group of immigrants in the same way that a prosecutor may delay prosecution and eventually dismiss a charge. This is squarely within executive power.
Trump has attempted to seize Congressional power, spending on a project that Congress has refused to fund and taxing without our consent to pay for it. "Taxing?" you say, "what tax?" Trump will spend funds that were allocated for several needs -- military construction and narcotics enforcement -- and has called up the Reserves. The Reserves have to be paid. The construction has to be completed. This means that Trump has coerced any responsible Congress into imposing new taxes (or borrowing) to pay for the costs he has created without Congressional action.
Article I places these powers in the hands of Congress, not the President.
The qualitative difference may be seen this way. Deferring judicial action against "Dreamers" is an executive act. If Obama had, however, declared an emergency and held that the "Dreamers" could become citizens, that would have been seizure of Congressional power.
81
@Jeff
Let us also not forget that Barack Obama brought a Harvard Law degree and legislative experience with him to the presidency and knew what he was doing.
Trump only brought his weak fevered brain and a loud mouth and after two years in office, he still hasn't got a clue about the right thing to do.
3
@Jeff
Best comment so far. Even Douthat missed the fact that Obama, as chief law enforcement officer, was perfectly within his rights to prioritize limited police resources to accelerate removal of criminal aliens and defer action on dreamers.
It happens every day in America where executives (governors) shift state law enforcement resources to address immediate needs. Prosecutors prioritize cases due to limited resources. Police officers prioritize arrests due to limited manhours. Its called "prosecutorial discretion"
Trump is just seizing congressionally allocated resources for dubious projects.
2
Mr. Douthat is the reigning master of intellectualized "whataboutism". His criticism of Trump always manages to find the roots of Trump's bad behavior in something that the Democrats did. It's never about the fact that Trump is like nothing the country has ever seen.
105
@Seldoc
BRILLIANTLY stated.
Douthat is the consummate conservative blame shiter. With his back to the wall at glaring egregious misdeeds by the Republican led Senate he grudging admits to a few peccodilloes but they're nothing Obama didn't do.
That's Trumpian truthtelling 101.
3
Mr. Douthat,
A fine example on your part where comparisons fall short and flat. While Obama may be deemed the most extraordinary president in contemporary times, reminiscent of Octavius, the first emperor of Rome, Trump will be remembered as the most controversial one, with a crumbling base and foundation.
We have gone from the sublime to the slime these last few years, and whether history will record these yesteryears in fairness with a clear vision, only the Fates can tell.
Trump has been compared to Caligula and worse, and those of us, who would have Obama labeled a 'tyrant of domestic policy', are living in another era and an insular America.
This latest show of the Trump presidency is one that brings to mind the bullies and power-abusers in our midst, laced with flecks of fascism, and this is not the time to bring in the clowns at intermission.
With the demise of Caesar, came the end of The Republic, and it is not so much the power and role of the Presidency that should be deliberated, but what have we done to abet and stoke the flames, turning the Nation into an emergency situation, where Americans remain politically divided and dispersed.
18
And yet, Octavius’ policies and politics confirmed the end of the republic. Mr. Douthat’s thesis does not depend on a comparison of the moral qualities of two presidents. Rather, it highlights the mechanisms they both used. Mechanisms that spelt the end of the Roman Republic. Caligula is a bad comparison to Trump. Whether or not one sees similar turpitude in both, their effect on the political structure differs. Caligula inherited an empire and had nothing to do with the fall of his republic. Trump’s methods contribute to bringing his down. From a certain point of view, President Trump combines the worst sides of both Augustus and Caligula.
4
@JF Bertrand,
Hark, but you are a scholar, and it was of interest to this reader to have your historical input on the decline of this Republic. Caesar had his reasons for choosing his great-nephew Octavius to take up his legacy, first deemed a parvenu before being crowned an emperor and god among men.
Another honest scholar, John Williams, wrote a small novel 'Augustus' in 1948, and you might find a visit to this era shortly after WWII and find certain similarities between the character of the first emperor of Rome and his methods in addressing the people he represented. Far different these were then those employed by Caesar or Trump, Williams ventures that Octavius knows that when he leaves office, the barbarians will come forth.
1
That was a lot of ink to spill in an effort that was ultimately comparing apples to motorcycles.
81
@Fincher My sentiments exactly! What an overabundance of words signifying nothing.
1
Let's be honest; a clear difference between Obama's caesarism and Trump's is that Obama's, even if you didn't agree with his solutions, were at least based on thoughtful consideration of facts in an effort to come upon a viable solution, instead of a careless attempt to energize a base for political gain. And lets not forget how irrationally obstructive the Republicans where during his presidency; remember Merrick Garland? Trump's presidency is the fault of no one but the Republican's empty quest for power.
165
As a Republican I applaud President Trump's use of his power to declare a national emergency. One of the most serious emergencies we face is Russian penetration of our political system and manipulation of the Republican Party. I hope that, if a Democratic president assumes office in 2021, that individual is prepared to reverse this contagion by detaining and interning all Republican members of Congress for aiding and abetting a foreign adversary. Some are likely to be innocent and will merit release. But there is no reason why honest Republicans much less the rest of the country should risk our collective future to coddle enemies of the Constitution. Lock them up!
20
@usa999 "honest Republicans"? A modern Diogenes similarly doomed to fail.
Whether illegal immigration at the southern border is an emergency is debatable.
Let us say it is not an emergency.
But it is undeniable that illegal immigration is a problem. For proof, apart from the numbers, all you have to do is listen to the potential illegal immigrants. They want to come here to have a better life. That’s what they say. The uncertainty of success of entry for them is like a lottery. Try it, maybe you’ll win. Who wouldn't want a better life? I'd like to be blond and 6 ft tall, but I am not. I'd like to be in the US, but I am in Honduras. Wanting a better life is not an excuse for breaking another country’s legitimate laws as to who gets in.
Surely any president can be given the benefit of the doubt when he is trying to enforce our laws, including a wall. Is it the best way? Maybe not, but it is a way, at the cost of a pittance, compared to what illegal immigration is costing us, compared to all the ill-advised wars we have engaged in.
On this, the Supreme Court will rule in Trump's favor, for reasons cited above.
5
@John Xavier III
It is most definitely debatable whether illegal immigration is a problem.
In fact, that our society and economy have REQUIRED illegal immigration to thrive would be an easier debate position to argue than yours.
34
@John Xavier III
Illegal immigrants contribute enormously to the American economy and they pay billions in sales and property taxes and contribute billions to Social Security, albeit through the use of phony SS numbers.
Illegal immigrants also increase the GDP significantly and do many jobs that lazy white people won't do at twice the wage.
Immigrants are what make America great.
What makes America awful are the angry white people...the deplorables....the Trumpers.
There is no immigration crisis.
There's a huge angry white guy crisis.
Sad.
135
@John Xavier III
Dems are concerned about Border security. They have been the ones increasing the border guards, equipment and the immigration down 80% from Bush time. Problem is now asylum seekers which the wall will not deal with. The argument really is do we need a wall? Will a wall work? How do we deal with asylum seekers? Dems have a different idea to secure the security
15
Trump may get his way because of poorly written laws passed by Congress. If Congress wants to fix matters, they would simply pass a law with 2/3rd of both houses, that amends the laws in question to better constrain the meaning of "emergency", and to time limit any action by the President. The purpose of these laws was to let the President act faster than Congress in a genuine emergency. That can be retained.
12
"A clownish interlude in the republic’s decline, not the Rubicon itself."
If trump is clownish, how would you characterize the near unanimous legislative support he gets from the Republicans in congress? Sure the emperor has no clothes, but I would give those senators and representatives high marks for their superb job at preparing and maintaining his magnificent wardrobe.
If Trump gets reelected in 2020, that's not the Mississippi we'll be seeing in our headlights.
14
Like most conservative commentators, Douthat hypocritically uses a double standard and false equivalence to simultaneously criticize Obama and excuse Trump. Obama acted in a Congressional vacuum. Congress has quite explicitly told Trump what he can and can't spend money on, in strict accord with the Consitution, and Trump is saying he will do what he wants, regardless. Regardless of Congress and regardless of the fact that most Americans don't want his wall, or him.
116
America took a wrong path and seems to many headed for oblivion. The liberal democracies took a path of the citizens voting to find balance by electing governments of the left and right to determine direction.
In 1964 the GOP decided extremism was warranted when the electorate understood that larger more powerful government of the people was not an option even when the electorate understood the need for more government.
Conservatism and its zealotry has destroyed democracy and threatens the very existence of America.
The tragedy is that America threatens all of us and here in Canada too many of us lose sleep because America's terms are simple unacceptable to those of us who see the planet's survival incumbent on integrating would be rogue states instead of exacerbating bad situations. I suspect in those quiet secure rooms when the heads of government of the Liberal Democracies get together there is only one topic of conversation and that is the USA.
We are very frightened and unlike in the USA it isn't just paranoia.
17
The disingenuous Herr Douthat comparing Mr. Obama's humanitarian directives to that of a power hungry swindler, satisfying his own fragile ego is a classic example of dishonesty.
Instituting clean air standards, protecting the waters from pollution, protecting public lands is "Imperialism?" Her Douthat you need to confess the next time you go to church. As I read it "Bearing False Witness," is a sin in your church, and you have managed to make it one of your signature treaties. I of course do not believe any of that religious sin stuff, but you profess to be a follower of the Catholic Church, and those commandments were written just for people you.
If there are sins, at least one of them is equivocating humanitarian acts, with those of a narcissist sociopaths attempt to make himself appear as a decent human being, which he is not. Putting Donald the swindler on the same level as a courageous, humanitarian being in my opinion is mortal sin. May you experience Dante's Inferno.
94
@David Underwood
I love reading your comments.
Wonderfully written, succinct and to the point.
To enlarge on your theme, the oath one swears to in court: Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth was written by very smart old lawyers who were actually very wise psychologists.
Words to the wise Douthat.
8
@David Underwood I feel that your response should be published as a balance to Douthat's opinion piece. Douthat's examples of Obama's actions is a perfect example of weak reasoning and underlying lack of understanding. Undervaluing Obama is a racist tactic.
5
@Butterfly
Thank you, comments like yours bring a smile to me, they make me feel good. If we could all treat each other on this level, think what a wonderful way to start the day it is. Just sitting down to breakfast here in liberal land, and listening to Wait Wait.
5
Caesar-ism is real, but the blame is entirely on Congress. It is cover for Congressional dysfunction. Congress does not act. It does not debate and do things that need doing. It also does not stop any President from doing them in its stead.
You can't have Caesarism without an inept Congress that fails to act.
Fix Congress, and that would fix the Presidency.
It would also fix the misuse of the courts to do policy that can't be done any other way.
When a three legged stool has one leg broken, the others don't work right either.
34
@Mark Thomason
Excellent comment and three legged stool is a great metaphor, except I would argue that two are broken.
5
@Mark Thomason: Whataboutism at its worst! Congress is not doing nothing. Under McConnell, the GOP senate has OK'd over 80 judges supplied by the Federalist Society, ALEC, and Chuck Koch. Remember the big tax give away? An inept Congress? Not by their lights. By my lights, a treasonous GOP.
Mr Douthat's what-about-ism is beyond tiresome. Trump's 'national emergency' can't be seen as anything else but a clear abuse of power, solely designed as it is to cover the president's behind and give his base further reason for bitter resentment going into 2020.
50
"the attempt to use a “national emergency” declaration [...] to build the border fencing that the Democratic Party and his own political impotence have denied him."
Let's be clearer, Mr. Douthat. Two years of Republican majorities denied the President his "big, beautiful wall" because it's not what's needed. And our Congress is not in the position to authorize spending by the government of Mexico, as had been constantly included in the promise.
The Democratic Party is just continuing what their Republican colleagues clearly thought right.
37
For those interested, the book "Rubicon" by Tom Holland is a highly readable account of the collapse of the Roman Republic. You get the feeling that Mr. Douthat has read this. It captures the ratcheting down process, whereby you cannot name a specific party, who is responsible, but it's obvious what is happening. If you are a social conservative, or not, it pairs well with Carle Zimmerman's book "Family and Civilization." That was re-issued in a much shorter form a few years ago, and argues that it was the collapse of sexual morality in and about this time that contributed to this political disorder and thus the decline of Rome. Obviously there are some other historical parallels that are worth of inquiry. Jacobean England. Bernard Bailyn's classic about the American Revolution also deserves mention.
2
Gibbons 6 volume "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" is still the classic. It also is worth mention that the entire Roman Empire economy was built on slavery. The Thracians were not amused. BTW did you know that the Rubicon is only a couple of meters wide in some places?
@Cobble Hill
If the book you mention, “Family and Civilization” is about the decline of Western Civilization due to the collapse of sexual morality, it’s a tome likely never far from Douthat’s nightstand.
1
Ross - the last paragraph is ... rather like Trump's Rose Garden speech: incoherent babble.
1) it is a crisis because he is thwarting the spending authority of Congress. That is a major departure.
2) it does not just illuminate the possible actions of a dangerous autocrat, he is illustrating those actions and illuminating the danger he poses still for the next two years
3) it is a crisis - the President is untethered by Constitutional constraints - he has broken the checks and balances and (see 2 above)
4) he crossed the Rubicon when he sent in the army - you may call him a clown but he is a clown with an army and that is most concerning
I liked it when Obama used Presidential authority to govern while Republicans merely obstructed. But in Trump's case, he is taking money that both parties in Congress have refused him. Enough with the false equivalency already.
170
Let Ross read Dr. King's "Why We Can't Wait."
12
Let's stop criticizing Obama for using Executive Action to get things done. Remember that Mitch McConnell said he would do everything to stop Obama from doing anything.
And stop comparing Trump to Obama.
Enough!
205
I am glad that Douthat opposes Trump's declaration of national emergency and calls it what it is: a naked power grab. But then he falls into the same trap that any conservative pundit falls into: false comparisons.
Most of Obama's executive orders were issued in response to a power grab by Mitch McConnell whose famous objective was to limit Obama's presidency to one term. He hijacked one of Obama's appointees to the SCOTUS by never bringing up the nomination to vote.
And now Trump has used national emergency to circumvent Congress' unwillingness to fund his pet useless project. that is truly gargantuan and Caesar-like.
At the very least I ask that Douthat stop making false comparisons unless he also includes McConnell's actions.
71
This "emergency" could have been dealt with in the first half of Trump's "rule" when our government was solidly Republican; Congress obviously did not see it as such. And if Trump didn't positively reek as President, he could have possibly gotten his way. But he is reported to be lazy, distractable and incapable of comprehending policy reports. Therefore Trump will never be proactive but only merely reactionary.
17
Obama’s presidency was not Caesariansm—except for the et tu, Mitch? knife in the back. Obama tried to govern from the middle, appointed Republicans to key positions and tried to work with Congress . . . until it became clear—as McConnell bragged—the GOP agenda was to withhold any shred of legislative compromise and make him a one-term president.
98
There is no "cloaking" with DJT, everything is done in the open, and explained clumsily by himself through his tweets or his rambling, incoherent, interviews. And further, because his attention span is Twitter sized, there is no grand strategy. He does governing like someone scanning a newspaper, jumping from article to article, never reading past the first few sentences. That approach, his attention span, and his inability to take or even understand the advice of experts, is the real problem. This "power grab", which ultimately will not work - even Republicans don't like it - is nothing more than providing a hopeful distraction from his crippling investigations and their ramifications for not only himself, but everyone involved in his election, including his family. Criminal conspiracy will ultimately be DJT's legacy.
17
Pelosi is 100% wrong. My theory is that politics needs to swing to extremes to motivate a significant number of people to take action. Hopefully we have reached that point. The "imperial presidency" started with TR and Wilson. Congress gave away their power in 1928 with Hampton v U.S. supporting Wilson's "progressive" model of unaccountable experts and bureaucrats (I.e. the administrative - Executive branch- state.) Congress has continued to give away its power to the Executive ever since (Chevron, War Powers Resolution, National Emergency Act.) Pelosi, Schumer et al are 100% wrong. Instead of playing grammar school "if you do that the next President will do this" they should be reasserting their Constitutional mandate under Art 1 Sec 1 (only Congress can make laws - if you think an administrative rule isn't a law I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.) Congress gave it away, and they can take it back. The downside is that (cowards all) they will have to take responsibility. It's time to build the wall - the Constitutionally mandated one between the Legislature and the Executive. (In fairness to Wilson his vision was to eliminate the Executive branch completely and replace it with the UK model)
4
You say, "On climate regulation and health care he used the presidential pen to pursue policies denied him by Congress..." What? The health care legislation signed by Obama, i.e., the ACA, was enacted by Congress and signed by him. Obama's health care legislation was not something unilaterally done by an imperial president.
33
Douthat tells us that the "Democratic Party has denied" Trump his wall, but no mention of why the Republican Party didn't give it to him during their 2 years of House and Senate control. Obviously Ryan and McConnell didn't want to fund the pointless wall, either.
34
I think the worst precedent Trump is setting is in his limitless bad faith. Republicans have thoroughly acclimated to it, and when the Democrats are back in power, any abuses by our elected officials will surely pale in comparison with 45, to the point where we will be tempted to brush them off or what-about them.
6
I know republicans want points for fair-mindedness, but comparing the EPA's action under Pres. Obama with Pres. Trump's fake "emergency" as equally unlawful is simply ridiculous.
The Clean Air Act directs EPA to regulate air pollution. In the face of Congress's refusal to act one way or the other for years, the EPA undertook a rulemaking. They concluded in a lengthy and intensive and open review of the evidence that carbon pollution was harmful and merited regulation under the Clean Air Act. One can reasonably disagree and argue that only Congress should act. But EPA's action was eminently defensible and Congress had not addressed the matter and Republican controlled Congress could have unwound it with a simple vote. Republicans used this to slam Pres. Obama repeatedly and endlessly and unfairly.
Obviously, Pres. Trump's action is far more egregious and flies in the face of plain Congressional action. Most republicans have been sitting on their hands going along. Mr. Douthat and others earn no points for fair-mindedness by saying both Pres. Obama and Trump equally overstepped the bounds of Presidential authority -- it's just false. They should say they were wrong to beat up Pres. Obama for a reasonable action they disagreed with.
23
Mr. Douthat: Consider the Obama executive orders on immigration. The senate had passed a bipartisan immigration reform which Boehner refused to allow a vote on the the house for his own personal interest in staying speaker, and not because it was bad policy or bad for the country. There was no vote in congress opposed to what Obama did. Obama acted out of conviction to help people who are americans in everything but their legal status and did in an area of core executive power and discretion of deciding what priorities should be pursued in using limited resources to enforce criminal law. If you think what Trump did is less a violation of the constitutional separation of powers than Obama's action, then you need to read the constitution and the relevant statues.
34
@S. Mauney
Thanks for reminding us of the important difference. Boehner wouldn't allow it to be put up for a vote. thanks to the"Hastert rule"-- a rule not found in the Constitution and promulgated by a criminal abuser of fellow human beings. Grassley and McConnell wouldn't even put Merrick Garland's nomination up for fair consideration. Boehner, Grassley, McConnell-- put party and right-wing ideology above the Constitution.
The differences between Trump and Obama are profound, even before we get to what should concern Douthat above all else-- moral character.
After that, it's a "total disgrace" to try to make an equivalence between them.
Mr. Douthat,
It wasn't just "the Democratic Party and his own political impotence" that have denied Trump the wall. I seem to remember a Republican majority in the house and the senate for two years.
19
@Eh
Yes, Eh it’s true the Republican Congress didn’t fund the wall when they had a majority, but in all fairness, they had higher priorities they needed to deal with first, ie passing the tax cut for their backers, stacking the federal and supreme courts, and revoking those pesky regulations that provide clean air and water, job safety, banking rules, etc. etc. Do give them some credit for keeping their eyes on the real prize (money)!
1
Mr. Douthat,
Republicans could care less about fair elections, the will of the people, democracy or decency.
Obama won the presidency in 2008 with 10 million more votes than McCain.
McConnell and Republicans did everything they could to sabotage him, thereby sabotaging the will of the American people.
When he won reelection, McConnell said that wasn't good enough and denied him his right, and the majority of Americans who voted for him, the right to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat.
For years Trump said that Obama was not born in America and Republicans went along with this stupidity. Currently, 51% of Republicans believe Obama was born in Kenya.
Now we know that there were over 100 meetings between Trump people and Russians. But, Republicans, including Richard Burr an "advisor" to Trump in 2016, have done everything in their power to undermine the investigation into Russian interference in our election and delegitimize Mueller. There will be no unity IF the report comes out because Republicans could care less about our democracy.
Now Trump has fabricated a false emergency and you act as if, with one more chipping away at our Jenga-like government, that taking away the power of the purse is no biggie because Trump is limp.
What a disgrace.
What a joke you and your fellow conservative columnists have become.
"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” David Frum
75
Comparing Obama to Trump is insulting and wrong.
Don't forget Mitch McConnell and his troops vowed to undermine any good work Obama and Democrats planned.
Obama's executive actions were carefully thought out and addressed real problems that needed attention.
Get back to us in 20 years when the climate is all shot to hell. We've had plenty of warning. Lies and predation and using hate and fear as weapons are the methodology of Republicans.
Your fearmongering and false comparisons are dead wrong.
I suggest a careful reading of the Gospels. Your buddies in Congress are not following Jesus, they are following Mammon.
Whited sepulchers, moneychangers in the temple, casters of first stones.
Don't be more catholic than the pope. What these people worship is materialism, exclusing, victim blaming, and hurting women and children and other vulnerable people.
Jesus wept!
41
Mr. Douthat,
Big difference between Obama's executive orders and Trump's. Obama was trying to improve things for the health and well-being of American citizens and to try to find a solution to the situation of young people brought here as children who really know no other system (and often no other language). Trump's only concern is being re-elected and getting the accolades and fawning of his "base." And I think you need to go back and check the records of previous Republican presidents. I think you will find that Reagan used far more executive orders than Obama ever did. And don't forget Reagan sent weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein to use agains Iran, resulting in the deaths of thousands of children. Then there was that little situation called Iran/Contra. If the Congress had not just petulantly blocked Obama's efforts to clean the environment, better regulate immigration and/or revamp business taxes, the improvements he brought to the economy could well have been even greater. But people like you would prefer to see nothing good be done for this country than to have a Democrat get any credit at all!
46
Though I used to be a Republican, I disagree with almost everything Ross says. But his slowly-mounting fury against Trump gives me hope.
It could slowly spread to others, and our national nightmare will be over.
12
“With Trump, though, the only clear precedent being set is one of deplorable incompetence. He’s taking unpopular action that divides his party and unites the opposition..”
Please Mr. Douthat, what evidence is there that the overwhelming majority of GOP elected representatives will offer any substantive opposition whatsoever to President Trump’s executive order? With few exceptions, they all fear being primaried out of office if they contradict Trump. Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Chuck Grassley, Marco Rubio know the danger of Trump’s precedent and will voice their tepid words of hesitancy, but no doubt will march in lock step with him. That’s what Republicans do. Incompetence? Since when does that matter to the GOP base?
31
Ross: The concern that Trump’s phony emergency declaration could enable future abuses is premised on the assumption that his declaration will be supported by Congress and/or the courts. What you're really saying Ross is that there is no chance of that happening. I agree but the grab should not have been made in the first place.
8
Republicans are so concerned about Trump's behavior that they are considering going beyond expressing concern to offering thoughts and prayers. However, some counsel against such extremism.
53
"Caesarism" my foot. Obama had to resort to any technique to overcome the intransigence of McConnell & his cohorts who blatantly announced they would not act on whatever he tried to do. In my opinion, that was as unconstitutional as what 45 is doing now & was tantamount to treason - as is a lot of what our current chief is doing.
119
@RKD All true, but McConnell paid him back when it mattered most - in the selection of a Supreme Court Justice.
6
Obama was trying to help the Dreamers, ordinary people who ran afoul of immigration law through no fault of their own.
Trump is trying to mess up people's lives by denying asylum, separating families, shutting down government which left 800,000 people without paychecks. He's also trying to waste the public's money to support breaking his promise that Mexico would pay for his wall.
These seem to be significant differences.
259
This "emergency" may actually be a way to not build the wall but keep face in upcoming elections. So many reversals, topped by a vacuous NAFTA remake.
10
Ross, nowhere do you mention that Trump's act--even if done stupidly and with a shoot-oneself-in-the-foot way of talking about it--is unconstitutional. In fact this paper emphasizes that his is the only use of the Emergency Powers Act that does an end run around the House, which denied him funds for his wall.
In the good old days, presidents thwarted by Congress learned to live with it after fulminating a bit. They didn't arrogate to themselves, however, the power of the purse.
Trump is actually attempting to grab money approved by Congress for other things to build his stupid wall, which the Democratic majority (and a majority of the country) doesn't want.
There's a difference between that, and a president taking us into war, or expanding current one. The constitution clearly states that the Executive Branch declares war, although we seem to have lost the art of having Congress vote on it too, so the two branches come together on foreign policy.
I don't think you should judge a president's abuse of power based solely on how well it's executed. The fact is, he did it, and it's reducing the power of Congress to elevate is own.
If he botches it, just think how much he might learn for the next power grab, that might be even more dangerous in terms of the rule of law, or basic civil liberties and Bill of Rights freedoms.
50
@ChristineMcM I agree with your sentiments, but the Constitution clearly states that *Congress* declares war. They never do it anymore, of course, but it is one of the responsibilities they've abdicated to the Executive Branch – and should take back.
1
Mr Douhat may well be right, if and only if, the Congress votes to rescind this act in sufficient numbers to override any veto, which in logical terms should be a no-brainer but is exceedingly doubtful with a submissive Republican Party.
Or the Courts either tie this up through 2020, which I find more possible or should a case go SCOTUS, that body find against Trump. While I have no confidence in Kavanaugh, it does seem to me that the remaining Conservatives might well hesitate to upset the balance between the two branches established over centuries. Even should Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas follow Kavanaugh, I believe Roberts, as he did re Obamacare and recently in
The LA abortion case, might well provide the fifth vote against Trump from his desire to uphold the prestige of the Court. If however Trump wins then all bets are off
7
@Steve: I'd sooner trust the tooth fairy to place a nickel under my pillow when a cap falls out than John Roberts to demonstrate his concern for the sanctity of the constitution when a Republican is sitting in the oval office.
30
You may be surprised by the originalist/textualist members of SCOTUS. The Constitution in Art1 Sec 1 is explicit - only Congress can make laws. They have "outsourced" law making to the Executive (rule making by administrative agencies (all of which are in the Executive branch.) Thus the "imperial presidency." If true to their beliefs the originalist/textualist Justices would repudiate Hampton (1928) and reestablish the non-delegation doctrine.
6
I agree with Mr. Douthat when he writes “the emergency declaration is not itself a constitutional emergency ..... its a moment that illuminates how a would be autocrat may someday act”.
Unlike Mr. Douthat, I believe that moment is close at hand. Robert Mueller will issue a report certainly before the next election. That report may implicate the President in a criminal conspiracy with the Russians for conduct during the campaign, financial improprieties regarding his inauguration, money laundering regarding his business interests, and perhaps other yet unknown criminal acts. Trump’s son will almost certainly be indicted. His daughter and son in law may be indicted for conduct surrounding the Trump foundation. What will our “limp caudillo” do when that moment arrives?
The real test for the present is how Senate Republicans react to this current political stunt. Up to now, they have been more than willing to endorse and defend outrageous appointments and policies. While these actions have eroded the concept of responsible government, they have not destroyed it.
When the Mueller report is published, our “limp caudillo” may become the autocrat Mr. Douthat fears. Will Senate Republicans have the courage to confront him? If the answer to that question is no, we all need to fear for the future of our country.
24
This is a rare occasion when I agree with Ross, more or less. But it is time for Congress to restrict the powers it has ceded to the president. A more competent evil president would be a real danger. We must all push our members of Congress to write appropriate legislation.
10
What we're witnessing isn't even a 'Presidency', Brother Douthat.
This rotten Trumpfish is just a Republican national black hole who proudly flaunts being a selfish, inward-looking, loud, xenophobic, idiotic Ugly American.
The power-hungry, majority-hating, tyrannical, cheating Republican Party that elevated this record-popular-vote losing scofflaw to office through the magic of voter suppression, voter purges and every crooked means possible is what made this Horse-Bottom-In-Chief possible.
Comparing this impostor to his predecessor, a man who actually won two Presidential elections fair and square, is false equivalence at its Republican finest.
The man reeks of illegitimacy every waking second of his pretend-Presidency.
Sure his Worldwide Wrestling Federation base cheers on his neo-Confederate wall monument-building through any means necessary, Constitution be damned, because they're as American as ruble pie.
As much of a Constitutional emergency as Trump is, it's the Republican party that's the real Constitutional emergency with their fundamental opposition to representative government and their undying commitment to Gaslighting Over People.
Trump, who governs like a two-year-old, is supported by a bunch a 0.1% welfare fanatics, science deniers, Grand Old Polluters, religious loons, white supremacists and gun nuts who are flushing the country down a toilet.
Nothing good will ever come from this Imposter-In-Chief and the Grand Old Phonies pretending to be Americans.
622
Trump announced back on January 4th that he was considering declaring a "national emergency" to fulfill a campaign promise. He declared a national emergency on February 15th and is seeking to appropriate funds from earmarked money to further rally his base and appease Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. For something to constitute an emergency it has to be an urgent situation requiring immediate action. Trump and the Republicans had two years to secure funding to build the border wall. Obviously this travesty of declaring a national emergency perpetrated by Trump doesn't even come close to being urgent or necessary.
Invoking a national emergency to fulfill a campaign promise, makes a mockery of the presidency. No matter what President Obama or even George W. Bush did while president, neither made the presidency a farce. Neither showed the contempt for the citizens of this country Trump has. Most of all neither showed such a flagrant disregard for the separation of powers.
"(Declaring a national emergency) is a moment that illuminates how a more dangerous would-be autocrat might someday act. It’s a weird foretaste, not the main event. A warning, not a crisis." I would suggest that the crisis arrived the moment Trump was elected. He has never respected nor accepted the fact that a president has limited power. He is a clear and present danger to this country every day he remains in power.
66
Mr. Douthat seems to be forgetting that the ultimate deciders of the constitutionality of Trump's power grab are the nine members of the nation's highest court, two of whom were appointed by Boss Baby himself, one with a key assist from our illustrious Senate majority leader. I would not at all be surprised if at least four of those justices would find some way of asserting that a President (i.e., THEIR president) retains the right to define a national emergency as well as the right to determine what to do about it. Which means it's all up to John Roberts- the new man in the middle who's as much a moderate as Maximilien Robespierre.
128
@stu freeman
But Roberts has, and has already shown a couple of times, that he is taking seriously the integrity and authority of the Court and his own place in Constitutional history
Does he really want to be the one who presided over, what historians will then have to record, as the rise of the imperial Presidency and the demise of the American system of checks and balances? Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh seem to have no such concern and no shame, But Gorsuch is a puzzle; intellectually and philosophically he should be able to declare either Trump's declaration, or the statute that seems to give him such vague and ill-defined discretion-- un-Constitutional. Will he? Does he care about his place in the history of this country and its experiment with a Constitutional system of separation of powers, checks and balances, rule of law? One would think so. Or is he just a more sophisticated right-wing ideological hack, and not really a judicial conservative. We'll see.
10
I suspect this particular power grab was done reluctantly, as President Trump took a long time to declare the wall a national emergency. Other methods to fund his signature campaign promise were not working. Last month, Senator Lindsey Graham said that caving on the wall could end his presidency. The president himself said he would "look foolish" if government reopened without wall funding. Maybe President Trump knows his chances of winning in 2020 are slim and this misuse of power is the only way he can save face with his base.
13
The comparison of our genuine climate emergency to Trump's border emergency is false and I find myself hoping that a Dem president will use any power at her disposal to force this country to face what most scientists in the field consider an impending disaster.
There is simply no excuse for this being a partisan issue. When did conservatives become the reckless party that ignores the red flags of our scientists?
I realize Douthat has nothing to worry about, he trusts God to provide him an eternity in a better place than this, but those of us who live in a logic based reality understand the urgency of the moment.
315
@alan haigh: What a great comment! Especially that last paragraph.
60
You need to call a law professor and ask for a tutorial on executive discretion. Start with prosecutorial discretion in criminal law enforcement. A fraction of crimes detected are actually prosecuted. There is a triage process that prioritizes the most dangerous criminals. That is entirely within the power of the executive branch at any level of government.
Obama did precisely the same thing with immigration enforcement. Deportations skyrocketed during his administration because he focus resources on dangerous undocumented immigrants. He left the least dangerous alone -- and the least dangerous faction was the Dreamers. It was a run of the mill exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
35
Obama was Caesar? What, because he picked up the slack from a determinedly do-nothing Congress? You may note a difference that Trump had two years of a Republican Congress and still has the Senate. President Obama had Congressional Republicans set out to undermine and obstruct him at every turn. When legislators shirk their duties entirely, it's a different scenario from what Trump has.
352
@NM: The problem of a do-nothing Congress that you mention is chronic and decades in the making. If power is not used it will be usurped.
6
@Penseur Maybe it is Trump that should be liken to Caesar since he long ago crossed the Rubicon from reality to fantasy.
1
Mr. Obama began his tenure in the white house with Mitch McConnell declaring that it was his job to make sure that Obama was a one term president. In contrast, Mr. Trump was blessed with unified government and that did nothing to curb his antidemocratic behavior. In this, there is a distinction and a difference.
489
@Susan
And he still could not get his wall in the first two years of his regency. Those who opposed him then, should continue to oppose him now.
14
What size hat do you wear? I'd like to buy one of those MAGA caps. It appears that our columnist is applying for Ann Coulter's previous position.
This isn't a crisis? Since when is completely trashing the Constitution not a crisis? Then you give us this morsel:
"For presidential power to meaningfully expand, it is not enough for a president to simply make a power grab. That grab needs to unite his party (ideally it would also divide the opposition)"
Meaningfully expand? Must unite his party? Buddy, the entire reason for the use of presidential power in an emergency is for the good of the nation, not to gain political leverage. Not to acquire power for power's sake.
Trump has manufactured an emergency. He is misusing a statute in such a way that it violates the Constitution. This is much worse than anything President Obama did. It's much worse that anything George W. Bush did.
Trump has thrust us into the middle of a real constitutional crisis. Every court in the land should throw it out. If fact, I would go so far as to say that Trump already knows he will lose in court and made this move solely to appease his rabid base. This this could drag on in the courts well into 2020.
So not only is it a power grab. Trump has created a constitutional crisis for purely political reasons. Time to start worrying. Way past time.
678
@Bruce Rozenblit
I think you need to read or re-read the Constitution. The President has enormous powers that allow him to by-pass Congress and even play with the judiciary (i.e., pack the Supreme Court with more members than the current number or decrease its membership when members die or resign). What the Constitution does not provide, conventions and restraints, are what keeps a level constitutional playing field. Unfortunately, Trump follows the Gingrich approach of extreme partisanship abetted by Republicans ever since. This is the real danger to our democracy.
11
@Bruce Rozenblit
Good morning.
It is bittersweet that there is so much thoughtfulness expressed by what I've come to find are the regular contributors, starting with their pump primer, Mr. Douthat, whose rationalizations meet their match in consequence, but then we all worry about history.
History is another way of saying "too late". It could and should be a way of saying "well done".
I miss seeing a psychiatric profile here of 45.
I miss hearing what the backbenchers who lost their way to 45. Is Weld alone? Hope not.
5
@Bruce Rozenblit
Without Mitch McConnell, Trump would be clueless.
McConnell is the dark angel of corporate power,
chunking the American people down the tube.
How can this be?
19
I had no problem with President Obama’s caesarism. But I’ve got a real problem with the current dolt’s caligulism. Nothing Mr. Obama did helped to stoke or presage the absurdly idiotic, spiteful and insane behavior of this Republican-backed dummy.
It might be remembered that Congress opposed Mr. Obama’s every move. They tried to kill Obamacare with more than 50 pointless symbolic votes that demonstrated their resolve to render him impotent. Perhaps executive order was the only way to accomplish a compassionate act when Republicans could strangle any initiative in its crib.
If you’re talking about power grabs, let’s not forget that Mitch McConnell prevented the appointment of Merrick Garland while Republicans rammed through Kavanaugh under a booze-soaked cloud of drunkenness and molestation. Turning the Supreme Court solidly conservative is the most powerful grab of all.
Mr. Obama was more of a man than the current pretender to the porcelain throne could ever be. This virulent man-child has undone every good thing Mr. Obama did. Instead of allowing children a path to citizenship, he takes them away from their mothers and throws them in cages.
We don’t need warnings about would-be autocrats when we’ve got one ensconced by an undiscerning electorate in the Oval Office. Nothing could have warned us that a spiteful idiot might one day be elected by an American populace who had forgotten that our democracy depends on the good will and discernment of the voting public.
853
@gemli
"I had no problem with President Obama’s caesarism ...
It might be remembered that Congress opposed Mr. Obama’s every move."
Gemli, it is not the job of Congress to give the president whatever he wants, whether it be Obama trying to help illegal immigrants or Trump trying to build a wall. You know this as well as I do. Yet, as the above words indicate, your partisan zeal to some extent overrides your respect of the rule of law. If you oppose Trump's overreach, take him to court. The Republicans should have done that with Obama. We cannot continue down this path in which political objectives are used to justify procedural shortcuts. Those procedures are in place for a reason.
9
@RSP But McConnell vowed to, on principle, give Obama nothing that he wanted. It sometimes meant that the GOP cut off its nose to spite its face. The GOP didn't have a lot of standing to take Obama to court: they refused to cooperate in any way at all. Unless he wanted 8 years of total inaction, Obama's only choice was to go around them.
But up until recently, the GOP sure has given this pathetic excuse of a president whatever he wanted.
66
@gemli Perfect and thank you.
28
Trump has another objective: the Press and the public will continue to be subjected to this issue for, possibly, years. During this time it will be a subject to inflate his base.
For Trump , not only is any publicity good publicity, continuous publicity is essential to his daily life.
26
Happily, there is little unused upside. The wall continues to get pummeled in pill after poll, and there is no way this issue provides the extra 5-8% necessary to give him a chance of victory
5
@Paul W. Case Sr.
Good point, and importantly, an engaging distraction from Mueller and Southern District of New York investigations.
3
Trump's bizarre speech on Friday showed that he is not, in fact, looking at a national emergency. In his own words, Trump predicted a protracted legal battle ending up in the Supreme Court, which he anticipated would ultimately side with him. But the time that this will take! Hardly what any president looking at an actual immediate crisis would treat so nonchalantly.
89
@NM "Pants on fire", now that is an emergency.
1
Douthat says:
"to build the border fencing that the Democratic Party and his (Clear & Present Danger 45*'s) own political impotence have denied him."
omitting that it was promised Mexico would pay for any such misbegotten monument, plus, if GOP'ers themselves actually wanted such a thing, they could have rammed it through Congress and the Senate in the first 2 years of this POTUS reality show.
That's not what happened, and the 'national emergency' is not really about a wall that even GOP'ers couldn't ram through when they controlled all the levers during the last 2 years.
Our faux-national emergency is nothing more than another delay, deny, distract, dissemble (DDDD) tactic to slow impeachment until the 2020 campaign cycle is so close that Orange Jabberwock 45* hopes impeachment will recede into the mists.
DDDD, and gum up the new House of Representatives is the real reason the White House suddenly decided to partially shutdown the government for 5 weeks, same as DDDD was a reason for the midnight ride of Devin Nunes, the delay of Sally Yates's public hearing, the delay of James Comey's hearing, that the North Korea summit was held up by TV lawyer Guiliani as an excuse for Weasel 45* not meeting with Mueller - on and on.
Conveniently, another faux-summit with North Korea is now in the offing, all being stage-managed by Rep. Mark Meadows, one of the Freedom Caucus 'rabid ferrets' (hat tip Gail Collins).
Each day is just a new episode of bad POTUS reality TeeVee.
179
Were we not living a catastrophe, reading about power grabs by incompetents, rather than power grabs in lieu of governance, would be risible.
We are headed for a recession. Revised figures for December that were just released show a marked slow down in consumer spending. Today, we learned that Amazon paid 0 Taxes last year. In the last two weeks the news included many stories about the IRS not filling its coffers. Yesterday, Trump announced that he would be diverting funds from various government agencies to build his foolish wall. When even Little Marco Rubio is trying to find
Who will suffer because of this limp Caudillo, the GOP and Mitch McConnell's corruption? Certainly not the oligarchs, whether or not they're feuding with Trump. They all remain united with the Caudillo in Chief when it comes to raiding this nation.
Weakening the presidency? Not a worry at the moment. A depression? Very much so.
---
Things Trump Did While You Weren’t Looking [2019] https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-3h2
25
You will be shocked that most of us won't see the comparisons in the same way. Obama's "caesarism", such as it was, was a response to McConnell's: his explicitly-stated, systematic refusal to take yes for an answer while Obama was in the White House.
As far as Trump's little tantrum goes, I'd call it an unqualified success. Reporters showed up at his news conference and pretended he might answer questions, everyone is talking about him, politicians are talking about immigration instead of the many actual emergencies the country faces--did you really think that Trump, or most Republicans in Congress, were hoping for anything else?
216
It has always been a mistake to think of Donald Trump as a clownish incompetent. His behavior during the campaign and since in office has been remarkably consistent insofar as his aim has always been to consolidate power in fewer and fewer hands, especially his own and those of his family.
Congress and the Republican Party have enabled him at every turn, and there are no signs of serious opposition even now. Mr. Douthat is missing the mark when he dismisses the effects of Trump's power grabs on future presidencies. What he should be focused on is the growing acceptance of Trump's routine shattering of the norms, boundaries and Constitutional limits that once circumscribed presidential power. Does anyone doubt that once unbound by such things Trump will emerge as the Putin-emulating tyrant he clearly wishes to become?
50
@Eric Caine
Douthat misses much more that that. As a covert to a strict version of Catholicism, you would expect him to be outraged by Trump's trashing of conventional social norms. But he ignores this (which is a foundation of TTrump's appeal to his base) and arranges to compare Trump;'s declaration of a emergency to Obama's executive order for protection of DACA folks. These are two completely different kinds of actions.In Obama's case the Congress had clearly reached a consensus on the immigration issue, bit Boehner refused to bring it too vote because it would become law without a majority of republican's votes in the House. In Trump's 's case the Congress has expressed it's clear majority view, and Trump wants to overturn it.
27
@Eric Caine
trump began shattering norms of decency, civility, literacy, morality, and sanity even BEFORE he was elected.
4
@Paul W. Case Sr.
Hear! Hear!
2
Everything that you point out is true (to modest degree) and I will point out a few things in rebuttal.
For the Obama Presidency, there was a stalling by republicans of Democracy itself, by filibustering any and all efforts to address serious issues facing the entire country. Even if the idea or bill before Congress was a republican one, then it would be decried as Socialism or some other such nonsense, only because it was now being initiated by a Democratic President. On many occasion republicans (especially so called leaders) openly mused about doing everything in their power to make it a one term President, just for the sake of.
For this administration and President, they have had absolute and complete control for 2 full years. (and a right leaning Supreme Court to knock down any and all challenges) They could have put forth and implemented any plan they wished. They could have spend 100 multiples of what is demanded now and made any wall a thousand feet high if they wished. They had the votes but not the uniformity.
The ''power grab'' now is only to inflame the issue so as to take away notice from other things, and perhaps to kick off the 2020 campaign. The President said as much in the very same sentence that he laid notice of his Monarchical intentions.
I appreciate the history lesson Mr. Douthat, but not the revision to fit your present narrative.
226
How those Republicans loved to accuse President Obama of acting like a tyrant, even comparing his encouraging remarks to students with the behavior of a dictator! What, if not a power grab, was it for Mitch McConnell to refuse a president the Constitutional right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy? Certainly not the behavior of anyone who truly believes in the Constitution, as the GOP claims they do.
73
Not so fast, Ross.
The 'emergency declaration" is based on a 1976 statute passed by Congress, and has been invoked many times before.
The difference is that the southern border situation is not a genuine emergency, any more than steel products imported from Canada or Costa Rica are threats to our national security.
The 1976 law allows Congress to reclaim its squandered sovereignty by a joint resolution, but Trump can veto that resolution. Then the matter would then go to SCOTUS. Trump's sycophants (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) will surely support him, as will Thomas and Alito.
Pray daily for the health of Justice Ginsburg...and for Chief Roberts as well.
78
@ed connor: I also believe, ed, that this is the first time in any presidential national emergency call where funds are being used by the Executive. Only Congress has the power of the purse. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer but doesn't that seem very clear cut? Only Congress has the power of the purse. If that goes away, then we might as well stop paying all those people and just hand that over to the Executive, too. I'm sure Mr. Trump would like my idea.
13
@ed connor
Trump offers a five billion dollar deterrence to the thousands of aliens who today survive the barren waste without the taste of water. The purpose is to avoid these thousands becoming illegal aliens in America, which is assumed to be a bad thing.
Still, does it not seem strange to concentrate enormous sums on these thousands while the latest and most authoritative estimate says that we already have 21 million illegal aliens amongst us?
You might read Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer (SCOTUS 1952 343 U.S. 579 ) The President was Truman and it was all about steel!
2