One Case Against Donald Trump

 

WARNING: This is more than 3600 words long. TL;DR types move along. 

For the remainder: please notice two points about the above title. The first is the word “one.” This is not to be a definitive case against Trump’s continuation as the US President. Indeed, there are important subjects under that heading that I will not mention at all. Nor will it consider, or even name, any possible other President. This will be one focused case, looking at the issue of Trump’s deliberate concentration of personal, familial, and irresponsible power. The second point to note at the outset is the word “against.”  I don’t plan to say anything positive about anyone, either Trump or any of his political adversaries. This is a case against; so anyone with an allergy to negativity may well wish to go elsewhere. 

There are a lot of constraints that do and should limit the power of a US president. Some of these constraints are constitutional, some traditional, some practical. I will not make much of the distinctions among them. The point is: a president who faces no constraints to his power is by definition an autocrat. A president who faces constraints but in no way acknowledges the legitimacy of any of them, and does what he can to undermine each of them, is an aspiring autocrat, even if he is in some fortunate respects bad at that job description. 

We are in that situation now. We have an aspiring autocrat in one of the globe’s most consequential offices. Neither he nor his fervent admirers acknowledge that it is appropriate to limit his power in any way whatsoever. Indeed, he has referred to himself as “the chosen one” while looking skyward -- his claims to irresponsible power are not merely institutional and political, they are metaphysical. 

Typically, a President’s power is limited by at least the following five considerations: much that he wants done, requires the cooperation of Congress; Whether he is working with or around Congress, he also may face the check of an independent judiciary; Further, we have a federal system, so that even complete control over the federal government is a limited remit given partial autonomy of state and local authorities (I’m old enough to remember that those who called themselves “conservatives” have often been especially exercised about that point); even within the executive branch of the federal government, tradition and law have often given some relative autonomy to some offices and activities -- it is this that is disparagingly called the “deep state,” although as I shall argue there is no real reason to prefer a shallow state; finally, even relatively free international trade creates a check to the power of any single nation-state’s government by creating customers, capital destinations, and value storage outside of a despot’s reach. No wonder President Trump doesn’t like it.

Trump sometimes gets credit for “attacking the powerful.” Indeed, this is an argument I have encountered among some whose intelligence I have no reason to doubt and whose judgment I have long respected.  Trump attacks the powerful institutions - the “corporate press,” the “deep state,” the “global business interests.” That must mean that he is on the side of the little guy, who has often been the victim of such giants. Right? 

Well, no. It doesn’t mean that. Our president does not attack the powerful because he wants to help

liberate anybody or arrange redress for their victims. No, he attacks the powerful because and to

the extent that he finds that their power is not his, is not subject to his control, and indeed lessens

his. He attacks the powerful precisely because he believes that only he, his immediate family, and

its business interests, has any power. He attacks not out of leadership or responsibility, but out of

sociopathy. He demands not obedience to the law, not reason in one’s opposition to him, not valuable

feedback. He demands sycophancy. 

It is said that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.” But given the above consideration, even when this

President’s enemies are my enemies, [As is the case with Congress, and with the intelligence agencies

and other deep state fauna!] I cannot be his friend. I cannot even be a silent witness.

That will be enough by way of a general program. Let us get to the particulars.  

The De Jure Limits

Let’s start with Congress. A lot of President’s quarrel with one or both branches of Congress, of course.

That’s in the job description. But in these recent months we’ve seen a self-aware delegitimizing we

haven’t seen before. Yes, the Obama administration issued a lot of executive orders -- and was

harshly criticized by the Republicans, including Trump, for doing so. What is new here is that Trump’s

executive orders are so sloppy, so compositionally careless, that it all says in effect, “not only are we

replacing Congress, we are replacing it with monkeys beating on typewriters.”

I am reminded of a Roman Emperor who once appointed a horse to the Senate, as if to say “who

needs a Senate as a deliberative institution when all I really need is a warm mammalian body.” 

Trump has also made something of a specialty of the “acting appointment.” The idea of an “acting”

Secretary of this or that used to be to fill a post on an interim basis until a permanent Secretary

could be found and confirmed. The new Trumpian idea is to create a post that does not need

Senatorial confirmation, but leave it in effect permanent. So much for the prerogative of the Senate. 

More important than this, though, was the incident (now forgotten, so quickly does one outrage

follow another) when Trump offered to pick the leader of the opposition in the House of Representatives.

The Democrats became the majority party there in November 2018. From then until the end of the

year there was some discussion as to who they would pick to be the Speaker of that House. Pelosi

was the leader of the party in the house while it was in the minority so there was natural sentiment that

it was her turn to be Speaker now that they were the majority. But there was also counter-sentiment

that she was of an older generation that had held power in the party for too long and somebody

younger would make more sense.  

It was an intra-party discussion until Trump sensed opportunity and jumped. POTUS said in a

pseudo-magnanimous gesture that he thought Pelosi “deserved” to be Speaker and he would help

her by lending her some votes if she needed them. 

That is not how it works. The majority party caucuses and decides who it wants to be Speaker. The

minority party typically has nothing to do with this. Nor does its President. Ronald Reagan did not lend

Tip O’Neill votes, Bill Clinton did not lend Newt Gingrich votes,. Etc. 

Why did Trump say this? Well, perhaps he was simply ignorant of how the process works. More likely,

though, he did not care. He wanted to be seen as elevating Pelosi to the Speakership because he

wanted her to owe him her job. As leader to the opposition to … him. And/or he wanted the public

to think that she owed him something. The whole incident was a gross attack on the whole idea that

the branches are separate.   

Of course, Pelosi got the votes she needed without his magnanimous help and soon made it very clear

she felt no indebtedness. Soon thereafter, a video started circulating among social media of Pelosi

speaking veeeerrrryyyy sloooowlyyyy. And this video was generally accompanied by commentary

about how sad it was that the Speaker drank too much. It turned out soon enough that the clip had

been tampered with. There was no audio/wizardry involved, somebody had simply slowed it down to

achieeeeeeve that effeeeeect. Again, not a “joke” nor a mistake, but part of a deliberate campaign to

delegitimize any opposition.   

But what about the judiciary? In this case, we had our warning early. While he was campaigning for

President in 2016 Donald Trump was also dealing with a class action lawsuit against him and an

operation of his, Trump University, which purported to teach people how they too can be real estate

magnates. The judge presiding over the case was Gonzalo P. Curiel, a native of East Chicago,

Indiana, the child of two immigrants from Mexico.  

In May 2016, Curiel granted a request by the Washington Post for public release of certain Trump University

documents and depositions that had been filed in the case. Judge Curiel believed he should avoid the

circus of a trial on this matter during the campaign, so  he scheduled it for November 28. (It was eventually

settled without trial) Trump took to attacking Curiel, saying that his rulings were obviously biased because

he was a “Mexican.” 

 

Trump was here taking advantage of the fact that Curiel is ethical. Under judicial ethics, he cannot

reply to public criticism of his rulings by a party to them. He is supposed to let his decisions do their

own talking. At any rate, Trump’s attacks on Curiel came to be seen as part of his nativist/racist bigotry.

Perhaps it is. But I think that the most likely reason of all may be that his heart is three sizes too small.

Sorry, Dr. Seuss. I think the real reason for this behavior was that, as with the legislature, an

independent judiciary is only a nuisance to a presidential autocrat. He is happy to use phony charges

of bias as part of a campaign to bend it to his will.  

This bend-it -to-his-will campaign? That of course encompasses both his nominations and to his false

claims about how many nominations he has made. Trump likes to claim that he has nominated a larger share of federal judges than any of his predecessors (except George Washington, he generally adds half-jokingly, because Wahington appointed 100%) of those who were in office when Adams took over. HAHAHA.) He likes to claim this because -- this is our regular refrain -- saying so makes it seem that the judges owe their opposition to him, so they are not an independent authority. Actually, most of them don’t. As one careful study

of the numbers concludes, he merely ranks “in the middle of the pack as to proportion of judgeships

filled.” 

And even as to the Supreme Court, three nominees in one term is not a record, however great

McConnell’s hypocrisy and chicanery in providing him with that. Nixon filled four seats in his first

term. It didn’t do him any good. In the tapes-disclosure case, US v. NIXON, three of Nixon’s appointees

voted against him, the other one recused himself. The point, again, is that Trump lies for a specific

purpose, to burnish his cred as an autocrat. 

 

Now we turn to the final of the constitutional limits to his power, the independence of states and

their localities from federal, and thus from his, control. 

Marijuana, in recent years, has been the beneficiary of a rebellion against federal authority at the state

level. The result is that most states have a state-legal marijuana industry, some just for medicinal use,

although several states allow adult recreational use on a par with alcohol use, with analogous

restrictions. The federal authorities under Trump have declined to crack down on this, even when Jeff

Sessions, long a war-on-drugs uberhawk, was Attorney General. So … a victory for state sovereignty

and human liberty, and a happy ending, right?

No: the federal government still has cannabis on Schedule I, and banks are federally regulated. This

creates enormous difficulties for the state-legal businesses. In essence, banks refuse to deal with MJ

businesses. So they can’t cash checks or put their money in accounts. This means a lot of small retail

businesses in a lot of states have large sums of cash on hand, inside the store. They might as well

also each have a neon sign out front that says, “Welcome Thieves! Cash is here!”  It is a situation

conducive to violence, and one that the federal government could resolve easily, either by changing

the Schedule I listing or just by a law targeted to the banking issue specifically. 

The Trump administration is opposed to any such change. Why? Well … states. Authority not

Trump’s.  Further reasoning seems not to have been forthcoming. 

But the last year has offered us much more dramatic evidence of POTUS’ disdain for and willingness

to undermine state authority. His tweets tell us followers to “liberate” various states -- states

generally where the Governors have more stringent Covid-related lockdown mandates than he

would like.  (I shall make no point about the rightness of such policies -- the point here is about state

authority.) The FBI (one of those “deep state” institutions that is also on the President’s shiite list)

infiltrated a militia group that then took such statements by Trump as a call to arms. An undercover agent recorded a meeting at which more than a dozen men planned to abduct Whitmer -- in the vernacular, they were planning to lock her up somewhere likely with the intent of killing her in due course,. The FBI made the necessary arrests to stop this plan.

The President’s response has been to take credit for the raid, while expressing no sympathy of or interest in Whitmer’s well-being or that of her family.  Indeed, he has led chants of “lock her up” with regard to Whitmer, in essence a re-affirmation of what the “Wolverine Watchmen” had planned. For what reason? Simply the one we have seen in play all along. Any gubernatorial authority that can defy his wishes is by definition a limit on his authority. And the only purpose of his authority is to extend and render permanent his authority. 

As Orwell’s character, O’Brien, explained long ago, “the purpose of power is power.”  

Two Practical Barriers to Power

There are barriers to a president’s power that are not to be found in the constitution. I’ve alluded to those above and it is necessary to speak of them explicitly now. 

A long line of President’s have been frustrated by the limits of their ability to control the security apparatus, with regard to enemies foreign or domestic. John F. Kennedy, with his brother as Attorney General, regarded J. Edgar Hoover, nominally Robert Kennedy’s subordinate, as a loose cannon -- yet a loose cannon who could not be fired. Heck, there was a four-part television miniseries in 1986 called Hoover v. The Kennedys.  

Now, some of you will say, “my god! Can Faille be taking the security apparatus’s side in such disputes? Has he abandoned any commitment to liberty?” No he doesn’t. No, he hasn’t. The point, again, is about autocracy. (And that Heather Thomas did as fine job as Marilyn Monroe in that mini-series.) It may be rare for a shallow state President to grab for absolute power in defiance of the deep state apparatus, but the last four years have manifested exactly that pattern. Trump said of Adam Schiff, “This guy, he ought to be put away, or he ought to be, you know, something should happen with him.” Schiff of course is a member of Congress, but mention this comment here rather than under the discussion of legislators above because Schiff seems to have excited Trump’s ire especially in his capacity as chair of the Intelligence Committee. That puts him in the proximity of the security apparatus, and on the same list.

Even the firing of James Comey -- the man who arguably unleashed Trump upon us with that October surprise rediscovery of Hillary’s emails four years ago -- fits nicely into the pattern. Autocrats step over the bodies who helped them in their ascent: that isn’t a rare pattern at all. 

As of the spring of 2019, this White House had granted high level security to at least 25 people who had been denied clearance by the regular intelligence process, according to whistle blower Tricia Newbold. It has been a busy year and a half since then, and that is among the many points we have all agreed to forget. Twenty five. One of the waivers was for his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Blood (and marriage) are thicker than water. 

Trump’s habit of romancing with, or sometimes simply showing plain subservience to, foreign dictators

generally happens while national security officials are tugging at his sleeves trying to get him to walk

the other way. “Ah,” you reply, “but it gets results. No. It doesn’t. It gets eg-gratifying results for Trump,

but does nothing for the rest of us. 

Trump acknowledged on one of Woodward’s tapes that he gets along with dictators well. Indeed he

does. Trump also remarks on the tape that it is a mystery why. No: it isn’t. 

Trump gets a press conference and photo op out of such relationships at will, and that makes him

happy. But is, say, the Korean peninsula more secure? No. Has Kim acted to dismantle his nuclear

program or his missile capacity?  No. Have the lives of any Koreans, or any Americans, been improved

in any way? Well … there is some neat footage of Trump stepping across the line into the North. Ah,

that must be something. 

Well … no. 

Finally: let’s talk about trade. I won’t make the case for the economic benefits of free trade

here. This is a focused piece, and I’ve kept policy questions outside of that focus. I’m thinking

of trade as an illustration of my theme: personal, or familial, power without limit or responsibility

equals autocracy. When an autocracy does something right for the people who live there, that

fact is a happy accident. 

Let’s say something here through about the constant lies that so characterize this presidency.

Here are five whoppers from its early days. I’ll stick with March and April 2017, that still bug

some of us. 

First, about two months after the inauguration, POTUS told an audience in Detroit, MI, “Our trade deficit

last year reached nearly $800 billion.” In fact the trade deficit in 2016 was just a little above $500

billion. A heck of an overstatement for a matter that he has made a signature issue. And one

that can’t really be an honest mistake: he as POTUS has instant access to the actual number.

Second. a little later, at a rally in Nashville, Trump misstated a key point in an executive order he

had just signed. He said, “I’ve .. directed that new pipelines must be constructed with American

steel.” In fact his order only required that pipelines use American steel “to the maximum extent

possible.” His lie pretends he left no wiggle room, but his actual order contains HUUUGE

wiggle room.

Another one, also from March 2017, “Brexit, I predicted Brexit, you remember that, the day before the event. I said, no Brexit is going to happen, and everybody laughed, and Brexit happened." In fact, he did NOT predict Brexit. The day before that vote, asked about it, he said he thought the Brits ought to vote to leave. But that was plainly stated as a recommendation, not a prediction. But of course he wants to pretend that he is an expert on matters relating to trade, so he pretends he made a prediction.

Let’s move to April 2017. “We have to do better, because our deficit with China, as you know, $504 billion. That’s a year.” The previous year the trade deficit with China was a little over $300 billion. Again, a large overstatement he MUST have known was such. Or he doesn’t and makes up impressive sounding numbers. Does the actual number not seem big enough to him? Or is this a compulsion? Just one more.

Our fifth example, still April 2017. “You saw what happened yesterday in my statements, because if you look at the dairy farmers in Wisconsin and upstate New York, they are getting killed by NAFTA." Uh, sorry. Canadian dairy products are NOT COVERED BY NAFTA. So if dairy farmers are getting killed by Canadians, they are NOT getting killed by NAFTA.

Each of these lies has ramified through ‘policy’ since. Trump declared a trade war with China confident that such warts are as he said “easy to win.” He blocked Chinese imports. The Chinese responded in kind. This obviously hurt US farmers. After all, the United states produces far more food than we consume ourselves. If we are going to follow an “America first” policy, and that is going to mean we eat what we grow and furnish our humans, clothe ourselves with our own manufacture, etc. then it is going to mean a lot of shrinkage of agriculture here. Despite our national obesity problem, we don’t and can’t eat anything like what we grow. 

This used to be a point of pride. Our “amber waves of grain” make us the “breadbasket of the world” and so forth. Now that is all forgotten because to heck with world trade, right?

So China stopped importing and Trump responded by calling them “patriot farmers” and announcing subsidies. This means he had taken away their own ability to provide for themselves and made up for this by putting them on the dole. Not a great improvement. 

The real problem with international trade is (and since you’ve read through much else by now you know what is coming) that it limits power. It makes the US government in general and its chief executive in particular subject to exchange rates, foreigner’s consumer demand shifts, geopolitical supply constraints, etc. How much better (much easiert to plan and control) if everything stays within these borders! 

Autarky is a fantasy, but the ideas that he is actually working toward it makes it a dangerous one. 

And that concludes what I would like to say to you today. One final thing -- if you are still with me then you must have found some value in what you’ve read. I am grateful for that. In the immortal words of Chevy Chase, “That’s the news. Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.”