If Senate doesn’t convict Trump, imperial presidency grows

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump faces possible conviction by the U.S. Senate for provoking insurrection by sending a marauding crowd to the Capitol.

Impeached once previously, he was tried and acquitted by the Senate, allowing him to remain in office.  But the voters ended his presidency, the delayed version of  conviction.

Impeachment proceedings are like criminal trials. A person is charged, indicted by House impeachment, tried by the U.S. Senate in the “guilt phase” and, if convicted by two-thirds of the senators, removed from office.  Though Trump is no longer in office, this second trial is like the “penalty phase” of a criminal trial. 

He cannot be removed from the White House, but the Senate may convict him and then ban him from again holding federal office.  It has already decided that it can try Trump even though he is no longer president.

Trump was first impeached for his attempt to induce the Ukraine president to help him discredit Joe Biden, the Democrat he would face in the election.  In an almost perfectly partisan Senate vote, the Republican majority acquitted him.

That impeachment missed some other possible charges. He had separated children from their parents seeking asylum in the U.S.  He used the presidency for personal profit.  He actively undermined federal government action in dealing with Covid-19, the country’s worst public health crisis.

American voters were free to take these matters into account.  They rendered their verdict, denying him a second term. 

That should have settled Trump’s fate.  But he refused to accept the election results and challenged them however and wherever he could, growing more extreme after each failure to overturn the election.

He argued that logic showed the election was stolen.  Biden received more votes than seemed reasonable. Mailed-in ballots, rigged voting machines, and partisan counts were all proposed as causes.  Though he had strong backing from many GOP voters, his complaints lacked evidence.

The courts rejected his complaints.  State officials, their integrity challenged, refused to nullify verified results.  The Attorney-General found no major fraud. Blatant misreading of the Constitution was rejected, even by Vice President Pence.  Trump came close to using the Justice Department, a government agency, to push his personal cause.

Finally, there was force. The president would send a militant crowd to the Capitol with the clear intent to intimidate Pence and the Congress so they would overturn the official election results.  Some Trump supporters could readily understand his fiery words as an order to use physical force to change the vote.  They occupied the Capitol, a form of insurrection.

Having spurned honest election results and pushed extra-constitutional moves to remain in office, Trump was impeached a second time.  He could not be removed, but the penalty phase could result in the Senate barring him from holding federal office again.

Before Trump, three presidents had become engaged in the impeachment process. 

Andrew Johnson was charged with violating a clearly unconstitutional law and was acquitted thanks to the votes of Republican senators, members of the opposing party.  Later, he would be elected a Democratic U.S. senator from Tennessee.

Bill Clinton was charged with actions having nothing to do with his presidency and was acquitted.  His popularity increased, and he completed two terms.

Richard Nixon was charged with covering-up his campaign’s illegal actions to subvert the 1972 election.  A House committee voted impeachment articles.  When told he would surely be convicted by the Senate, he resigned.  In effect, he was convicted. He never again held public office, and his reputation remains highly negative.

Impeachment and conviction of presidents is a partisan matter.  Only once has a senator of the president’s own party voted against him, when Mitt Romney voted to convict Trump in his first trial. Given the serious charges against Nixon, many GOP senators were ready to convict him.

The question now before the Senate is whether Trump’s extreme attempts to wipe out millions of votes merit conviction.  It would take at least 17 Republicans to join the Democrats to convict. 

If the Senate does not convict him and strip him of the possibility of running again, he may choose not to run or the people might have another chance to be his judges.

Some Republican senators may believe that support from Trump’s voters is essential to their own ambitions and refuse to vote against him.  The central question will be whether GOP senators will put condemning Trump’s role in the insurrection above their party and careers.  How many will show their independence this time?

If partisan interest prevails, he will be acquitted. The precedent will be clear. There would be no action, beyond outright bribery or treason, that could produce conviction after impeachment of a president. The Senate would write another page in the textbook for the emerging imperial presidency.

 

 

 

Biden seeks unity, but faces divided Republicans

 

Gordon L. Weil

The president-elect had planned to take a public, victory train trip into Washington for his inauguration.  Instead, his protectors had him travel securely and unseen.

Sound like Joe Biden this week?  It was, but it was exactly the same scenario for Abraham Lincoln in 1861.

The parallel goes even further. Both times, massive military protection guarded the new president’s inauguration.  Both times, the president took office in the wake of civil strife – the Capitol insurrection in 2021 and the secession of South Carolina and six other states 160 years earlier.

Both presidents assumed leadership of a country badly divided.  About half of the Republicans believe Democrat Biden had stolen his election from Donald Trump.  Even before Lincoln, the first Republican president and an opponent of slavery, took office, four more states moved toward secession from the U.S.

Biden followed Trump and Lincoln succeeded James Buchanan.  Both Trump and Buchanan were divisive one-termers who may end up with history’s lowest presidential ratings.

Both new presidents sought national unity. In his First Inaugural Address, Lincoln stressed that he did not seek to end slavery in states where it existed.  He would later agree to a proposed constitutional amendment to guarantee slavery’s survival.  He drew the line only against a state quitting the Union.

Lincoln’s attempt to appease the states that would form the Confederacy failed. Both sides knew that ultimately the addition of more free states would bring the end of slavery. Even if that were far in the future, it was unacceptable to the rebels.

Despite his attempts to reassure the southern states, he failed to prevent secession and the Civil War. In his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln recalled his failed efforts, ruefully concluding, “and the war came.” Lincoln’s attempt at appeasement is a lesson for Biden.

Biden can also learn from more recent experience.  Obama made one-sided concessions to the Republicans. Instead of naming a strong liberal, he nominated moderate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The GOP would not even give him a hearing.  Similarly, Bill Clinton made concessions, but could not avoid impeachment.

With only a slim Democratic majority in Congress and some Republicans seeming to regret the insurrection inspired by Trump, this year may provide the proper conditions for compromise.  While deals with the GOP might not fulfill the Democrats’ agenda, they could provide the basis for restoring unity.

Biden has said in his Inaugural Address that he will try for unity and to work with the GOP.  But it’s not really up to him. Will Republicans in Congress recover their traditional responsible conservatism and negotiate deals or will they remain dominated by Trumpers for whom politics is combat?

In the first vote of the new Congress, ten GOP senators opposed the first Biden nomination. These are the hardcore Trumpers, for whom unity is not only impossible but unwanted.

Unity would only come if both sides were willing to adopt policies in which their disparate views are taken into account.  The Democrats control the national government, so they have a right to set the agenda.  If there are Republicans willing to negotiate in good faith, the result would blend some of their concerns into the new laws.

First-term presidents are often considered to have the greatest power during their first year in office. Their mandate is fresh and they may enjoy their greatest congressional support. With that in mind and seeking to reverse many Trump policies, Biden plans to move forcefully and quickly. If the GOP is willing to work with him, it should react immediately.

But some Republicans insist that Trump’s impeachment trial harms hopes for unity. They ignore the fact that continued GOP backing of Trump’s unproven claim that the election was stolen has made unity impossible. The passionate denial of Biden’s win undermines efforts for compromise.

If the GOP is ready to move away from the take-it-or-leave-it politics of the Trumpers, Biden could risk disappointing the most liberal Democrats and try to achieve his objectives by accepting some limits favored by Republicans.

As the oldest president, he well knows the value of using the time you have, not waiting.  That works against appeasement, which would likely be seen as a sign of weakness.  But it could allow legislative deals on health care, the environment and the economy.  Of course, strong action on Covid-19 is essential. 

With more congressional experience than any president in 40 years, Biden appears to understand that the best way to get the other side to negotiate is by the aggressive pursuit of his program. That could gain the attention of Republicans better than would appeasement.

When he could not get what he wanted from Congress or simply wanted to assert his power, Trump often took action on his own.  He stretched the use of executive orders beyond traditional limits, often taking advantage of the loopholes left in laws by a Congress more focused on fundraising than lawmaking. 

Biden will now use the precedent set by Trump to undo Trump.  If Congress wants to reassert its lawmaking powers, it needs to get its act together. 

That requires cooperation between practical Democrats and reformed Republicans. It may not be unity, but it’s the essential first step.

Note to readers.  This column is also available by email to you through the link below. You may subscribe for free.

https://gordonlweil.substack.com/embed

 

 

Will Republicans let Trumpism survive Trump?

 

Gordon L. Weil

During the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol, an invader lowered the American flag and hauled up a Trump banner.  That action embodied the crisis of American politics. 

Three major political forces now exist: the Trumpers, the Republicans and the Democrats.  They are now openly engaged in a conflict for control of the country.  Though Trumpers proclaim it is like 1776, it is more like the Civil War.

Since the end of the post-Civil War military occupation of the South, Republicans and Democrats have shared power, with each party in control from time to time. Each party accommodated the other to a degree, knowing that one day it would be in the minority.  Both parties shared strong allegiance to the U.S.

The surprise rise of Donald Trump changed that system. His personal ambition, detachment from political tradition, and lack of partisan allegiance made him a conduit for radical populists and racists whom he could arouse by his rhetoric and who could become his reliable base.

The Trumpers were committed and numerous enough to take over the Republican Party. Traditional Republicans remained loyal to their party and feared losing power, if they did not align with Trump.  GOP office holders wanted to avoid primary challenges.

Trumpers, newly in charge of the GOP, labeled long-standing party members, like Sen. Susan Collins, as Republicans in Name Only, RINOs.  In fact, the Trumpers themselves could be considered RINOs.  

Traditional Republicans could ignore Trump’s excesses because he pursued policies consistent with some of their most cherished goals: smaller government, conservative judges, lower taxes, less regulation, and reduced focus on public welfare and on “political correctness.” They relished making unlimited war on Democrats.

The Republicans like the Democrats believed that the Constitution and the American political system provided protection against extremists gaining control.  Conservatives could use Trump and Trump could use them with positive results on policy and little risk of long-term harm.

Trump was worried that he would lose the 2020 election and started a backfire of fraud claims even before the voting.  As a television personality, he saw his crowds, his audience, as proof of his unassailable popularity.  He could not lose a “fair” election.

Forewarned, election administrators took strong steps to prevent fraud, and they succeeded. Trump, having continually pushed against customary political norms, persisted in claiming fraud, though he lacked evidence beyond the size of his crowds and what was to him the impossible magnitude of Biden’s vote.

The Trumpers, who owed their control of the GOP to Trump, remained loyal to him, even in preference to their country and its traditions.  They would not be satisfied until he was awarded a second term.  Many Republican House members and a few senators encouraged them, believing the Trumpers were a political force that could support their own ambitions.

At that point, the Republicans paid attention to what the Trumpers were doing to their party and the country.  Most would not overrule a fair election to back Trump or cede power to his loyalists.

Encouraged by Trump’s marching orders and some militant cultists, thousands of Trumpers seized the Capitol to wrest control from the elected Congress.  Only the belated use of law enforcement ended the rebellion that day, but not for good.

Thanks to Congress and public opinion, Trump’s regime ends in dishonor, and he should begin to fade away. Will Trumpism survive Trump?  Will Trumpers maintain their control of the GOP? 

If they do, the party itself will be RINO.  True Republicans will have either to try to retake control or form a new party that can attract some independent and Democratic support. A renewed and responsible Republicanism is essential for the good of the American political system.

The Democratic Party does not have the same problems. Unlike the GOP, which has become increasingly disciplined, the Democrats have long tolerated a wide range of opinion. It is a party in which a moderate conservative senator from West Virginia and a strong liberal senator from Massachusetts can both comfortably consider themselves Democrats.

The U.S. is essentially a conservative country.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal deployed liberal solutions and increased government’s role.  President-elect Joe Biden seems both to recognize the value of Roosevelt-style progress and America’s preference for moderate change.  The Democrats continue their traditional balancing act.

Faced not with “socialism” or a quasi-mythical enemy called “antifa,” the Republicans can serve the country and themselves by reestablishing a responsible counterbalance to the Democrats. It’s time for them to show demagogues the door.

Some Republicans try to stem the reaction to the Capitol invasion by charging that the Democrats undermine hopes for unity.  Given the GOP’s history, including its Insurrection Day its House leaders’ opposition to certifying Biden’s election, that won’t work.

The two traditional parties should renew their agreement on the rules of a functioning democracy and faithfully abide by them.  Unlike Trump, they should not bend or break those rules to serve their momentary political advantage. 

If they remain in total conflict, the traditional parties invite unrest and insurrection by those for whom there are no rules.

 

Trump’s final foe – the states: from fighting Covid to presidential election

 

Gordon L. Weil

What’s the difference between Maine and Tennessee? A lot.

Maine is the third most successful state in combating Covid-19 while Tennessee ranks seventh from the bottom. 

Maine has two U.S. senators, one Republican and one Independent, who accept the election of Joe Biden as president.  Tennessee has two Republican U.S. senators, who signed on to an election challenge of state decisions.

Covid-19 policy and the election challenge are linked. Both are harmful to the states.

On fighting the virus, the Trump administration shifted responsibility onto states with often disastrous results.  On the election, the self-interested president and his congressional backers have sought to override the constitutional clause assigning the states the deciding role in presidential elections.

One side, which dominates Tennessee politics, favors limiting the role of government and has supported virtually any Trump move, even at the expense of their own state.  In Maine, a majority appears to favor a traditional role for government and balances a strong commitment to individual rights with community interest.

That translates into resistance to wearing masks in Tennessee with the resulting high spread of the virus.  Maine has deployed a mask mandate and experienced higher compliance.  The result is a much lower Covid-19 spread.

Senators from states like Tennessee, which originally supported Trump’s election claims, opposed a large Covid stimulus bill to help individuals and provide federal aid to states.  Senators from states like Maine, who leave elections to the states, favored more aid for state budgets.

If there were ever a subject on which compromise was needed, it was on the most dangerous public health crisis the country has ever faced.  Yet, despite the claims that it was a compromise, the most recent stimulus bill limited spending to a level in line with the Tennessee position.

Similarly, the bitter split over unsupported charges that the presidential election was subject to ballot tampering (only in states Trump lost), showed open resistance to bipartisanship and even to the American political tradition of accepting election results.  The challenge is purely partisan, coming only from Republican-dominated states.

Dealing with both Covid-19 and the presidential election, Trump and his allies have been ready to push the states around.

To avoid possible blame for misjudging and mishandling the Covid-19 crisis, Trump shifted almost all key aspects of crisis management, except scientific work, to the states.  The lack of presidential leadership left the patchwork fight against a virus that knows no boundaries.

Seeking to claim victory in the face of clear and documented defeat, Trump has sought to override the constitutional provision through which the states kept the control of elections for themselves when they created the federal government.

Maybe Trump is teaching the country a lesson about the American system of government. He believes in an all powerful president, showing little respect for the states. Over his term in office, he has challenged the basic nature of the system.

The system survives.  The courts have consistently ruled against Trump’s case based mostly on his assumptions about voter behavior and unsupported claims of tampering. Judges rejected his challenges and stressed that the states make the final judgment.  A congressional majority agrees.

But government has also failed. In the absence of clear presidential leadership, the inability of Congress for months to even try to unify around a Covid-19 policy harmed the country and denied state aid.  If a crushing majority could pass the defense bill over a presidential veto, why not a virus bill?  Surely, the threat is as great.

Under these circumstances, federalism itself has suffered.  The states have done as well as they could by conducting fair elections and, in many cases, fighting against both the virus and the indifference and political exploitation of the crisis by Trump and Congress.

That states like Maine and Tennessee can diverge on policies is a strength of the federal system.  But 50 different solutions by the states do not work in a worldwide pandemic.

Congress treats states as mere federal subsidiaries, left begging for benefits doled out by Washington.  And it continues to pass laws that give great powers to the federal executive.  The result is a decline in the checks and balances of the federal government and in its relationship with the states. 

The states seem to have been sacrificed for political expediency. In the words of a once famous comedian, they “don’t get no respect.”

Senators were originally meant to represent their state’s interests in Congress.  The election controversy shows that many represent their party or focus only on partisans they need for their reelection – Trump’s loyal base. 

Unless the congressional commitment to federalism improves, the core of the Constitution will fade into nothing more than a pleasant myth.