Politics of trying to kill pubici media

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Trump rescissions bill killed federal funding for NPR, PBS and local stations.  The $1.1 billion cut is small for the federal budget, but big for Republicans who think NPR/PBS tilt to the liberals and give little coverage to GOP conservatives. 

NPR/PBS maintain they do straight reporting.   Their response recalls the retort of President Truman to a voter who yelled, “Give ‘em Hell, Harry.”  He replied, “I just tell the truth about them, and they think it’s Hell.”

If enough voters agree with that view, it could make Trump regret having satisfied longstanding GOP grumbling.

The unusual bill, to claw back funds already appropriated and in the pipeline, passed on an almost purely partisan basis.  Some Republicans regretted having the congressional power of the purse transferred to the president, but they went along with Trump’s request.

In the Senate, two GOP senators broke with their party.   Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski did not influence the outcome, but they voted “no” in their states’ interests.  Alaska and Maine are the two states most heavily affected by the cuts, well beyond any other states.

One argument against the cut was that it would impact rural states that depend on the public media for news, emergency warnings and entertainment.   

Maine is the state with the highest share of its population living in rural areas, which make up more than 98 percent of its land area.   Alaska is almost entirely rural.  Still, Murkowski’s fellow Alaska senator voted with the president.  Collins, the only GOP member of Congress from New England, faces re-election next year and depends heavily on the most rural parts of the state.

In the House, two Republicans broke ranks.  Neither comes from a seriously affected area, though one represents a swing district in Pennsylvania.  For all other Republicans, partisanship prevailed.

If two more senators and two more representatives had voted against recission, the bill would have been defeated.  In the House, the vote was 216 to 213; the Senate vote was 51-48.

In the 2024 elections, two Democratic House incumbents and two sitting senate Democrats lost their re-election bids by narrow margins. The popular vote winning margin for the two House seats was 11,938 out of a total of 145 million votes cast in House elections.   With the Democrats, the result would have been 214-215.

In the Senate, the two losing Democrats had missed re-election by a combined margin of 58,492 out of 110 million cast in Senate elections. With them, the Senate vote would have been 49-50.

Trump would not have been able to prevail on cutting NPR/PBS and foreign aid, if two seats in either the House or Senate had not flipped.  As much as the Trump spokespersons emphasize his mandate and his almost monolithic GOP congressional support, his dominance might have been undermined if 12,000 more people had voted for the Democrats.

Clearly, the Democrats will try to take Senate seats now held by Republicans.  Among likely targets, reflecting somewhat the impact of the recissions vote are North Carolina, Nebraska, Montana and Alaska.

In the House, they will surely try to recover the two seats they lost last year.  But they also see GOP legislative loyalty to Trump as potentially creating political liabilities for the Republicans. Trump is writing the Democrats’ platform by giving them issues to run on.  That’s worth more than vague references to restoring democracy or Trump’s dangerous way of governing.

That makes the public media vote interesting.  It is estimated that about 100 million people, plus those streaming, view PBS at least once a month.  The demographics of viewership fit with the emerging picture of the Democrats’ natural constituency – educated, middle income or higher, female.

The educated, affluent voters who watch PBS are likely to vote more than the general population.  They follow the news, so they may be aware of the rescissions bill.  In some areas, stations are heavily viewed by key constituencies like Blacks or Hispanics.  Kids who talk to their parents about their viewing and their caregivers who are viewers both matter. 

PBS now receives much support from the private sector.  Though it does not carry commercials, it allows major donors to present their product or service.  Supporting companies may benefit from the “halo effect” of being associated with the public media.  Maybe there’s a different of halo effect, one based on the loyalty of PBS viewers. 

By itself, it may be questionable if the loss of government support of the public media will have much of an electoral effect.  But joining in showing loyalty to PBS is easier than arguing about issues that create divisions in the Democratic Party.  Can the Democrat’s turn support for PBS/NPR into a feel-good cause that’s beyond politics?

U.S. under one-person rule

 

Gordon L. Weil

On July 4, 1776, a group of representatives of a new country they called the United States declared that all men (not only citizens or a subset of them) are equal and have the same human rights.  And it’s up to democratic governments to ensure these rights.  (Of course, “men” would come to mean “people.”)

Now, 249 years later, the United States obviously remains a work in progress. Some may believe it is reverting to the political system that existed before the Declaration was published.  Earlier, I compared the actions of President Trump to King George III, as listed in the Declaration of Independence. 

With the federal government under the control of Trump and Congress, which is entirely dominated by his supporters, only the judiciary, the third branch of the government, could give hope to doubters about the Republican regime.  But that looks to be a false hope.

Trump ordered that, despite express constitutional language and Supreme Court precedent, not all people born in the U.S. are citizens.  He wants to exclude children of illegal residents.  Asked to rule on Trump’s order, the Court avoided making a decision.  After a delay of 30 days, it left him the ability to strip people of their citizenship.

The Court failed to rule on birthright citizenship, and it may not issue a decision for many months, possibly even a year.  Instead, it focused on banning any U.S. district court from issuing a “universal injunction” that suspends an executive action nationwide, while the federal courts consider its legality.  Now, only the Supreme Court itself may issue such an injunction.

Such cases may take weeks or months to get to the Supreme Court and, meanwhile, the president can apply his edict.  People will be harmed, perhaps permanently.  Children will be born in the U.S. who may be stateless.  In some states, injunctions will remain, so there will be a patchwork instead of a single federal birthright standard.

The Court’s decision produced a scholarly study of universal injunctions in the 18th Century.  That does not sound political, though the result favored Trump.  When such injunctions were used against then-President Biden’s executive orders, the Court never gave them a second thought.

One door was left open for the federal district courts.  If a court certified a complaint as a class action – raising the same issue for people in the same situation as the plaintiff – then the court might issue a universal injunction.  Of course, a court’s approval of a class action would be challenged by the president, potentially adding to the delay before a final decision.

If all requests for a universal injunction in a major case must be decided by the Supreme Court, it could be quite busy.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion reassuringly said that the Court could handle its increased workload.  Interestingly, no other justices said they agreed with him.  Delays seem inevitable.

The Court was preoccupied by the injunction question.  It skipped the real focus of the case: can Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship be squared with the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent?  It dodged the question that demanded an answer.  The result was Trump’s unchecked view could apply in many parts of the country.

This week also brought the passage of a destructive and costly budget bill, ardently sought by Trump so he could congratulate himself on July Fourth.  He offered administrative concessions to wavering GOP House members and eked out barely enough votes to accompany the tie- breaking Senate vote of the Vice President.  He did it without a single Democratic vote.

Any civics lesson on government teaches about the three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. Today, all three are under the control or influence of one person.

Though public opinion polls are questionable, they broadly show that a majority of Americans do not agree with or even respect the three branches of their government.  By manipulating historic understandings about constitutional government, a minority has gained control.   That minority is trying to reshape the system to entrench itself.

The three branches act on behalf of the ultimate authority in the American government.  The Constitution’s first words name it – “We, the people.”

The United States is a democracy; the people rule.  Trump may believe that he can dazzle people with his showmanship, but the nation depends on their taking charge.  The key is participation and the time is now, as the 2026 elections come into view.

My long-time readers may recall I have a favorite saying from a cartoon character who reshaped an 1813 American battle report.  Pogo Possum proclaimed, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

If you don’t like what’s happening and do nothing, it’s your fault.

Happy Independence Day.

"Big, bearuful bill' in trouble

Gordon L. Weil

It’s all about the Laffer Curve.

President Trump’s “One, big, beautiful bill” to cut taxes and spending has run right into it.

The Laffer Curve, an idea promoted by economist Arthur Laffer, has been around since Ronald Reagan was president.

It’s about the relationship between the level of taxes and economic growth.  If taxes are too low, the government puts too little money into the economy to promote growth.  If taxes are too high, the government takes too much money out of the economy, slowing growth. 

There’s a sweet spot when the tax rate is just right.  At that point, taxes allow government to play its proper role in the economy and individuals and companies the right amount of money to keep the economy growing.  Nobody knows where that sweet spot is; it’s a matter of opinion. 

The BBB would lower taxes and could be enacted with only loyal Trump GOP votes. The euphoria of the federal government under a single party and the resulting belief that it could easily enact the president’s proposal are now meeting the realism of American politics. 

The iron law seems to be that the people – even conservative Republicans – expect much from government but do not want to pay enough taxes to get it.  They reasonably add some debt to the mix, though they must avoid letting debt service feed on itself, always growing greater.

Here’s what the BBB would do.

First, it would extend major tax cuts for individuals that are set to expire and create new tax breaks, ranging from no tax on tips to lower rates for the wealthiest taxpayers.  These add up to huge tax breaks that Trump promised in his campaign.

Second, it would cut spending to pay for some of the tax reductions.  To even begin to raise enough money, it would require slashing Medicaid, green energy support and much else.

Third, it would inevitably increase the national debt to pay for the tax cut costs not covered by spending cuts. For that purpose, the debt ceiling, which is little more than a symbolic political gimmick, would have to be raised.

This combination is causing big trouble for Congress and may result in Trump’s BBB falling well short of his promises.

The individual tax cuts were set to expire after Trump’s second term, assuming he had been re-elected in 2020.  Because he skipped a term, they expire during his presidency.  He would make them permanent, but that is costly.  Added tax cuts, promised in the campaign, would massively increase the national debt.

The neutral Congressional Budget Office says the BBB could increase the national debt by $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years.

Traditional GOP conservatives reject increasing the national debt.  Even for their president, they cannot accept trillions more of new debt.  Some creative bookkeeping to disguise debt is supposed to satisfy them, but it is not working.

Debt service is now greater than either national defense spending or Medicaid, and conservatives are looking for debt reduction not a further increase. 

As for spending, the budget cannot be cut the way Trump and Elon Musk would like.  The budget deficit is not simply a matter of wild Democratic spending.  Instead, it results from members of Congress responding to the demands, needs and desires of the voters.

Constituencies composed of millions of voters favor Medicaid for the poor, health research, renewable energy development, farm payments and a myriad of other government programs. Members of Congress cater to their constituents to stay in office. They support most federal appropriations and protect each other’s priorities.

The worst is yet to come. Social Security will soon stop paying for itself.  Voters are likely to oppose massive cuts to it.  Congress will have to find funding.

Right now, Trump doesn’t have the votes for BBB.

While spending cannot be cut as Trump wants, there’s room for some reductions. Nothing should be automatic.  Each agency should have to justify regularly all its spending subject to line-item review, not a Musk meataxe. The president and GOP Congress can set their priorities, like killing foreign aid, but cannot achieve them all.

The Laffer Curve stands in the way of a tax increase.  Republicans see the U.S. as being past the sweet spot, suggesting that a tax cut would boost the economy, increase government revenues, and pay for itself.  There’s no historical evidence supporting such optimistic expectations.  The unforeseen economic effect of the Covid pandemic proves that.

The answer to finding a sound federal budget without endless debt increases must be a combination of setting spending priorities and tax increases.  Voters must accept the need to pay for the government services they want. 

It’s time to stop hiding behind the self-serving appeal of the Laffer Curve and recognize that tax increases on upper income people must come. 

What the Democrats didn't do

 

Gordon L. Weil

Here’s some news you may have missed this past week.

Though sure to be outvoted by House Republicans, Democrats issued their own comprehensive legislative package, calling it their “Big, Realistic Bill.”  In it, they noted where they have common ground with the GOP on several key aspects of immigration issues.  The bill was backed by all Democrats, while some Republican members said they liked aspects of it.

A group of Democrats announced a new social media outlet called “Truth Now.”  A rotating team of Democratic editors, including some members of Congress, intend, “to keep up a steady flow of proposals, facts and fact-checking.”  Their motto: “There’s nothing as dangerous as fake news.”

Democratic congressional leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries announced that their legislative work left them insufficient time to serve as the principal Democratic spokespersons.  Together with the Democratic National Committee, they will name a single spokesperson to hold daily press briefings for the White House and congressional press corps.

The DNC plans to create “The Democratic Forum,” a summit meeting later this year to include congressional leaders, governors, state party representatives and others to identify and develop unified policy positions for use across the country in next year’s elections.  The DNC chair said that the first step to victory is building unity around a creative set of proposals.

You missed all that, right? 

Of course, that’s because none of it happened. 

Instead, the Democrats chose to stick to the same failed policy they have pursued since 2016 – Trump will self-destruct, and they will be left standing to pursue great policies like those that brought them success under FDR.  They will look for attractive candidates to relentlessly attack Trump policies.

In short, the Democrats expect to win by waiting for Trump to lose, thanks to his obviously divisive policies.  They fail to notice that they are no more popular than Trump and his loyal Republican GOP.  

The Democrats are poor communicators.  During Joe Biden’s term, a week would go by without a word from him, as aging kept him out of the public eye.  Filling the Dems’ vacuum, a relentless Trump issues pronouncements on his own social media, which he has made his main tool for governing.

The Democrats need simple messages that focus on the concerns of most Americans, regardless of party.   Scoring points in congressional hearings doesn’t reach most people out here.  This is not an academic debate. This is politics, and politics today is war.

Democratic leadership should define party policy.  Here are my ideas on the issues they should address simply and directly.

The debt.  Too much and growing.  It could devour the budget.  Who will pay and when?

Taxes. We ask for a lot from government, but don’t pay for it.  With much debt, we must turn to taxes.  A fair system means tax increases, not decreases, for the wealthiest.

Your rights. The Bill of Rights is meant to protect people in the U.S. from the government. If government strips rights from anybody, it comes closer to being able to do the same thing to you.

Budget. All agree that there’s waste and marginal programs.  But today’s slash and burn kills innocent victims.  The Democrats should demand each department meet a spending target by setting priorities.  The president and Congress would have to sign off.  

Less fortunate neighbors.  Our market system inevitably leaves some people behind.  Most Americans are compassionate and want to help the poor and disadvantaged to participate in the economy and lead decent lives.  That’s nothing new.   Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not political playthings; they have become part of the fabric of America.

Immigration.  This great country should be able to control the flow of immigrants, who can gain their freedom and boost our economy.  While illegal immigrants who are criminals should be deported, mass deportation will deprive the country of loyal residents who make real contributions.

Biden.  The Democrats are moving on from the Biden years.  His policies do not always meet the needs of today.  We respect the past, but our eyes are on the future.

Economy.  Inflation was up during the Covid recovery, but it’s no longer high.  We must keep prices stable, while allowing the work force to earn more as it serves a more advanced economy.  That involves issues ranging from where and how long people work to direct aid to improve skills.

Of course, the Democrats disagree with the Republicans on almost all these issues. But they should spend less time attacking the GOP and more on making their own case.

This approach raises risks for future Democratic electoral success.  But their current policy of pure negativity may continue it on the path to failure.  Given the dire situation of American politics, it’s time to take risks.

 

Trump's DOGE could face Congress protecting its turf

 

Gordon L. Weil

There’s a new government department.  Except that it’s not part of the government and it’s not a department. 

It’s the Department of Government Efficiency, known at DOGE.  Sounds like something you’d make up, maybe as a video game, but it is real.  Its leaders aren’t confirmed by the Senate, its staff is not taxpayer funded, it communicates by social media, and it reports to a president who is not yet in office.

It exists and is functioning.  President-elect Trump expects it to respond to the broad concern that the government is not working and is not responsive to the public’s needs and priorities.

Trump has been acting presidential well before he takes office.  Of course, he has presidential experience, but his early moves are likely to set a new precedent in governing.  Creating a seemingly real government department before he gets into the White House is part of his effort.

He gave the agency to Elon Musk, on paper the world’s richest man, and Vivek Ramaswamy, who wants to be president one day.  Both are wealthy enough to finance DOGE and use Musk’s X social media to communicate.

The two men issue recommendations, which at times sound more like their wish list than measures to improve federal government operations.  But DOGE should be taken seriously, because it was created for them by President-elect Trump, and he takes it seriously.

DOGE has three purposes.  It would bring federal spending under greater control to reduce the annual deficit, allowing taxes to be cut, not raised.  It would eliminate unwanted, unnecessary or overlapping agencies or functions, reducing the size of government.  It would give the president increased ability to control the government.

The early proposals by the two DOGE bosses are somewhat scattershot, but responsive to the Trump Republican agenda.  The Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are at risk of outright elimination.  Even the Defense Department bureaucracy may be in for cuts.

In line with the Supreme Court’s doubt about the powers of independent regulatory agencies, DOGE might want to pare down the staffs of such bodies, including the IRS.  Outlays for culture, public health, and NASA could all be reduced.  But plans have not yet taken final form.

Ultimately, the DOGE spirit might extend to dealing with the two largest areas of federal spending, Social Security and Medicare.  Decisions about their future funding must come soon.  One solution would be to reduce benefits, which may sit well with DOGE.

The success of this cost-cutting approach may depend on Congress.  The president cannot close agencies or programs that exist under law.  Although Trump disagrees, the law now prevents a president from refusing to spend money on congressionally mandated programs.  He would need the consent of Congress to enact at least some major DOGE proposals.

While that may sound easy with a GOP Congress, it’s not a certainty. Many programs exist because members of Congress want to please specific constituencies.  Regardless of their party, they may be reluctant to kill or cut them.  Partisan support for the president may not overcome catering to their backers.

Evidence exists that Trump and DOGE may inevitably face a hard sell.  The Government Accountability Office, something like the national accountant, has already looked at much of what DOGE is supposed to do, but the agency is mostly ignored.

The GAO has published a detailed list of hundreds of federal programs that duplicate or overlap other programs.  For example, 80 economic development programs are run by four different agencies.  They exist thanks to proposals by members of Congress or turf battles among the agencies.  They probably waste billions of dollars.

Even more worrisome is the GAO High Risk Series, which “identifies government operations with vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or in need of transformation.”  Sometimes agencies heed warnings and undertake enough reforms to get off the list.  There are now 34 GAO warnings. but the president and Congress take little interest in them.

Presidents and department heads are selected for political reasons, not their administrative abilities.  A function like DOGE could make sense if it were independent and not overly ideological.  Of course, GAO could be used, if it were taken more seriously.

So-called zero-base budgeting for agencies could also be used.  Under it, they would regularly develop the lowest budget needed to get their missions accomplished and request any new funding for going beyond that.  Congress could eliminate or create programs.  President Jimmy Carter installed a workable ZBB, but it was gone by the presidency of George W. Bush.

Large organizations, public or private, will always be inefficient.  Though its agenda may turn out to be overly personal, too partisan or controversial, Trump’s DOGE recognizes that inefficiency may have gone too far, causing lost public confidence in government.

Bigger U.S. House could renew fading Congress

 

Gordon L. Weil

Jared Golden is trying to close a circle that’s as old as the Constitution.

As one of Maine’s U.S. House members, he wants the House to take a new look at an old subject.  He has proposed that the House of Representatives should consider adding members.

During the drafting of the Constitution, the Framers debated the size of the House.  The original argument was so heated that it was the sole issue that caused George Washington to speak out at the Constitutional Convention.

How many people should be represented by a member of the House?  Too few would be undemocratic and but too many might be hard to manage.  James Madison, the chief drafter and later the fourth president, argued the problem would solve itself.  As more states joined, the House would naturally grow.

That worked until 1900, when the number of members stopped at 435.  In 1929, it was formally frozen there.  When Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii had joined, their seats were taken from other states.

The result is that the number of people in any single House district is now larger that the entire population of some states.  Each Maine district includes more people than the entire population of the state of Wyoming.   The math shows that a voter in Wyoming has more power than a voter in Maine.

An easy path to voter equality would be to set the population for each district across the country at the population of the smallest state, Wyoming.  I calculate that would increase the House to about 573 members, an added 138 seats.  Even a larger House could make sense.

Adding new states should mean more seats were added, as originally intended.  The number of House seats should also increase as the national population grows. The purpose should be to keep the House representative and its members in touch with voters.

That increase would still leave the U.S. with a higher population per voter than any other major nation.  Citizens would remain distant from their representatives, and members might remain limited as true representatives of their people’s pulse.

One advantage of expansion would be the need for thorough redistricting into smaller districts.  That would make racial or political gerrymandering more difficult by making districts more compact. And it would certainly open the way for many new faces in Congress, which could enable more women and minorities to gain seats.

With a larger House, each member would not need to be assigned to several committees. Assigned to fewer committees, they would have more time to become more expert.  There might also be more committees or subcommittees, allowing each to have a far sharper focus than is possible today.

House expansion, allowing members to become more expert on specific subjects, is not political daydreaming; it could turn out to be critically important.

The Supreme Court is moving steadily toward stripping regulatory agencies of their independent powers. When it completes its works, perhaps quite soon, their decision-making powers would end up with the president.  Yet regulation is nothing more than powers that Congress could itself exercise by law.  Congress, not the president, could take on more responsibility.

A larger Congress should include enough members that focused House committees could take on more detailed decision-making.  Such targeted committees could produce strict, general rules, allowing less room for special interests to work out deals with regulators behind closed doors. If Congress fails to act, it will continue to lose its powers to the president.

There’s another benefit to the proposal for expanding the House.  Many want the electoral vote for president to better align with the popular vote.  One major reason they can misalign is the unbalanced voting power of some states over others. Each state’s electoral vote is the sum of the number of its House and Senate members.

If the House were larger, the Electoral College would be larger.  The number of voters per electoral vote member would be closer to equal than it is now.  With electoral votes better distributed based on population, the electoral vote will come closer to reflecting the popular will. 

Of course, each state would retain at least one House seat and two senators, no matter its population.  That’s what the Constitution requires and would prevent a fully popular vote for president.

While amending the Constitution is almost impossible given today’s political divide plus and the growing efforts by the Court to apply its constitutional views, some issues like term limits or maximum ages of officials cannot be addressed. But Congress can change the number of House members, which could breathe some new life into an old system.

Unlike many of his colleagues who routinely accept the current system, Golden has a good idea that could produce major bipartisan reform.  It’s worthy of study and action.

Congress should hold Trump accountable

 

Gordon L. Weil

“The Man Who Would Be King.”

That’s the title of a short story (made into a movie) by Rudyard Kipling, a famous British writer.  The tale is about a man who works his way to absolute regal control.

The question today is whether that title would apply to President-elect Donald Trump.  Maybe what Kipling made happen in a distant land can’t happen here.

“In England,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in arguing for the Constitution, “the king is unaccountable….”   American presidents should have comparable powers to kings.  But, unlike the royals, they could be held both politically and legally responsible. 

Presidents are subject to elections plus check and balances from other parts of the government.  They may also face “legal punishment,” Hamilton said.  In short, presidents should be king-lite, only kept from full power by being held accountable.

The Constitution allows a president to be both convicted by the Senate and subject to prosecution for the same actions.  This July, the Supreme Court sharply limited presidential exposure to prosecution and retained final control to decide what matters could go to court.  That watered down Hamilton’s promise.

Proven immune to impeachment and conviction and given a free pass by the Supreme Court, Trump wants a clear path, unimpeded by the Constitution and laws, to unchecked action.  To him, the election means winner-take-all. The Democrats struggled to explain what they meant about a “threat to democracy,” but that would be it.

Take the current case. The Senate is supposed to give its “advice and consent” to key presidential appointments. It has sometimes rejected presidential choices.   To reach a decision, it investigates the nominees, holds public hearings, and then votes.  This is part of checks and balances.

If the Senate recesses for more than 10 days, the president may make a “recess appointment.”  The appointee may serve without Senate review until the end of the current Congress, as long as two years.  In practice, the Senate now avoids lengthy absences, so recess appointments have disappeared.

Trump wants the new Senate to take a recess shortly after it begins work in January, too early to justify a break.   He could then install in office for two years people who might turn out otherwise to be unacceptable to the Senate.

Some senators, with Maine Republican Susan Collins among the leaders, say they will insist on the normal confirmation process, perhaps sped up.  The big government split may be institutional not political, between Congress and the president rather than between Republicans and Democrats.

Congress comes ahead of the president in the Constitution to emphasize its role as the lead institution of the federal government.  The world has become more complex, so the president must deal with complicated and fast-moving matters.  However, national policy is supposed to be decided by the people’s representatives.  It’s still the constitutional role of Congress.

If it insists on applying checks and balances, Congress might improve its tattered reputation. Trump could try to totally discredit it or accept some limits, knowing he can count on strong GOP support for most of his policies.

The Connecticut government commissioned a study on what makes governors strong or weak.  It could help in evaluating Trump’s presidential power. 

For his formal powers, he would be rated strong, because he was independently elected, picks his own administration, has veto power and enjoys legislative backing.  But he does not control the budget, and his appointments must be confirmed.

For his personal power, Trump’s overall weak popularity does not undermine his political appeal.  He enjoyed a clear election mandate, which must be seen as a positive report card on his first term.  And he pulled off an historic comeback.  These are attributes of a strong president.

On balance, Trump could end up with that rating.  His reputation as a successful president may depend on how well he can work out an institutional deal with Congress.  He stands to gain more power by cooperating with a GOP Congress than by stirring up unnecessary turf wars.  By asserting itself, Congress could restore some of its lost powers and recover its reputation.

In foreign affairs, presidents have great scope, so Trump may also become a strong leader by adopting popular policies and avoiding unnecessary domestic disputes. Closing the border may well be broadly popular, but not mass deportation.  He could unilaterally end military conflicts by forcing concessions on some countries, but avoid high tariffs that would bring high prices. 

Kipling’s king makes unwise and egotistical use of his power, bringing his downfall.  The people realize they have been misled, rebel and dump their king.  That’s the usual fate of absolute rulers.

Even as he dreams of a third term, Trump must understand that his presidential legacy – strong, weak or wise – is being made now.

As Trump advances, could a GOP Congress follow?

Gordon L. Weil

Conventional wisdom is dead.

No pundit’s opinion on the election could foresee the assassination attempt on Donald Trump or the debate debacle of Joe Biden.  Both events changed everything, especially for the Democrats.

Even before these developments, Biden struggled to stay even with Trump in the polls. This is not a good position for an incumbent president, even when running against a former president.  Now, Biden and the Democrats are in even greater risk of losing.

First, whatever the poor historical record on presidential assassinations, the attempt on Trump merits the strongest condemnation, no matter one’s politics.  There’s too much loose talk about violent solutions to political disputes, and it may make a potential assassin feel justified.  They aren’t and never should be.

The attempt impels us to look at the person who is president and their meaning to us.

When the Constitution created the office of President of the United States, the title described the person who was the formal chief of state and head of the federal government.  The much-revered George Washington could be succeeded by lesser leaders, because their role was restricted to heading a limited government.

By the time of the Civil War epoch, that changed.  The President of the United States became the leader of the American people.  Beyond overseeing the faithful execution of the federal laws, the president came to embody the political, moral and economic leadership of the nation.

Whatever his policies and practices, Trump comes across as a personality inspiring loyalty and respect from a large part of the population. The assassination attempt and his defiant clenched fist reply elevated his status even further. Brimming with confidence, he picked Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, sure to be absolutely loyal to him, as his running mate.

Whatever his policies and practices, President Biden comes across as a modest and goals-oriented president.  If you don’t want Trump, he represents himself as the solution. But he does not come as close as Trump to having the charisma and the aura of self-confidence needed by the nation’s leader.

While backing Biden and his policies, many Democrats seek his withdrawal from the race for the presidency.  His age has taken its toll.  While he might be right that he could competently serve, it is doubtful that he could provide the inspirational leadership that the country expects from a president.  Good enough is not enough.

If they have a chance of defeating Trump, it comes down to two possibilities.  Trump might commit an error that discredits him, but the assassination attempt has given him a lot of cushion. Or the Democrats could come up with a younger, compelling candidate who would provide Trump some real competition.

The current situation leaves the Democrats with problems in all three elections this year – for president, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate.

The presidential winner sometimes has “coattails” on which House and Senate candidates ride to office.  This year, however, the Democrats must hope to win enough congressional control to block some of Trump’s moves, should he win.  Their success was already in doubt before the Trump assassination attempt.  If he has gained, his coattails may have grown larger.

A Democratic candidate who makes a strong showing even if they fall short, could help encourage the balance that would come between Trump and a Democratic Congress.  If the Democrats fail, they may be forced to spend years in the political wilderness.

Biden has seemingly been convinced that his path to victory would come from more closely aligning himself with Bernie Sander’s progressive policies. That may have the effect of leaving behind centrist voters who seek more practical policies and fewer partisan red lines.

Though not an exact parallel, look at the reelection of Maine Gov. Janet Mills, who defeated Paul LePage, her one-term predecessor and a Trump loyalist.  She occupied the middle ground, occasionally leaning to the right.  And she benefited from the abortion wars and her recognition that progressive Democrats had nowhere else to go.

The Democrats could readily select a Biden replacement who could follow the same pattern, especially if they were to pick a dynamic, centrist woman.  It would also help if they adopt a simple message and talk less about abstract “democracy,” when what they mean is simply obeying the law.

Trump’s message, “Make America Great Again,” is feared by many as a return to the bad, old days – more polluted, more unjust, more economically unbalanced.

The Democrats could also send a similarly simple message that might resonate.  A suggestion: “Democrats – the American Way.” That slogan could imply that MAGA, Sander’s “socialism” and economic and ethnic injustice are all inconsistent with the nation’s traditional aspirations.

The Democrats need a message about how they will solve practical problems and a strong candidate to deliver it.