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.
