Trump’s mythical mandate for war
‘Unprecedented’ victory?
Gordon L. Weil
President Trump justifies his broad assertion of authority to
wage war against Iran or abolish entire agencies of government by his election
victory claim that “America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate.”
He sees his supposedly crushing victory as authorization by
the American people of his exercise of extraordinary powers. Or he knows that his win was not particularly
unusual, but believes that he can spin the result by boldly asserting a false
claim. Then, it’s carpe diem – seize the day – and make
the most of your opportunity without much thought for the future.
That explains the Iran war.
He thought he could win quickly and did not worry about the long-running
economic crisis that his war could create
Karoline Leavitt, his highly promotional press secretary, touted
that, “the American people gave President Trump an overwhelming mandate.”
That he could live off his self-proclaimed mandate came from
the acquiescence of intimidated congressional Republicans. “We have taken back control of the Senate.
Wow, that’s great,” he proclaimed post-election.
In short, his presidential actions, ignoring historic
constitutional practices, are justified by the “unprecedented,” “powerful” and “overwhelming”
mandate he received.
Something is “unprecedented,” when there is no previous
example of it. Implied in his claim was
that his victory was by the largest margin ever and that he swept his party
into unusually taking control of both houses of Congress.
What are the facts about the mandate that is the basis of
his power?
● Margin of victory.
In 2024, Trump’s popular vote margin was the smallest since 1968. In the 13 elections over the 52 years beginning
with the 1972 contest, no margin of victory in the popular vote had been as
narrow as his in 2024.
● Congressional coattails.
A presidential winner being accompanied by the congressional victory of
his own party has happened six times since the 1980 election of President
Carter, including Trump’s own 2016 election.
Only one of the six retained his party’s congressional majority in the following
mid-terms: Carter in 1982. So, the
Senate win was virtually routine.
● The Trump world interprets his 2024 election as an act of
the “American people”. His win did not
produce an “overwhelming” or “unprecedented” result, and it was hardly the voice
of the American people? Here’s the data.
Citizen population
aged 18 and older 236 million
Registered
voters 174 million 73.6% of total 18+ population
Voters 154 million 63.7%
of registered voters
Voted for Trump 77
million 49.8% of voters
Among all citizens 18 and over,
Trump received 32.6% support.
● Number of votes. Trump
did not achieve the greatest number of popular votes for president; Joe Biden did
in 2020.
● Electoral vote.
Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Obama (twice) had bigger electoral vote margins.
The claim that Trump won unprecedented, overwhelming support
from the American people is false. He
clearly won the election, but he has used his appraisal of the result as authority
for the virtually unlimited use of presidential powers, as he understands them.
Further, the voters who supported him count as the American
people; everybody else is not. He says
he “hates” those who did not support him and misuses his power to go after
them.
His four-year mandate misrepresents the political will of a plurality
of voters, expressed through an election on a single day. Their political act, misrepresented by him,
can only be reversed or confirmed through political action.
One alternative would be impeachment by the House and conviction
by the Senate. Trump fears impeachment
for a third time, which indeed would be unprecedented.
He strives to retain control of the House, though his methods
involve unusual mid-census redistricting and an ongoing effort to reduce the electorate
by false claims of fraud. He must win in
the House to prevent impeachment. This
may be a tough challenge given his unpopularity in the polls.
If impeached, he is unlikely to be convicted in the
Senate. That would require the votes of
67 senators, and that could only result from a huge landslide defeat for the
Republicans. GOP senators would be
unlikely to break ranks. It’s inconceivable that there would be enough Democrats
and Independents next year to produce the majority needed to convict.
Still, the alternative could come at the ballot box in
November. The congressional elections emerge
more as a referendum on Trump than as a routine collection of partisan, local contests. The Democrats could take control of the House
(likely) and perhaps also the Senate (increasingly possible).
Seats can flip if voters want to impose limits on Trump’s powers
and to shift Washington’s focus to affordability issues. Or they could confirm that they want more
authoritarian rule. Either way, Trump might
then learn the true extent of his mandate.
