Reducing Political Polarization, Making Presidents Less Powerful

Over the past decade, experts have written a lot about how to reduce polarization and resentment in America, and now, in the wake of Donald Trump’s re-election, we’re sure to hear more about civility and finding common ground. But there is a solution to partisan political sectarianism that doesn’t involve listening to your uncle’s opinions about drag queens: diminishing the power and importance of the presidency in American life.

To be clear, the need to rein in the executive branch did not arise out of nowhere when Trump was elected. The best day to limit executive power was yesterday, but we will do the same today. The plain truth is that Trump will re-enter the Oval Office stronger than ever; the beneficiary of decades of accumulated privileges handed over to the executive branch by an insensitive Congress and an unserious Supreme Court.

Trump’s problem dreams with joy The idea of ​​using the state to retaliate against his critics and political enemies is a sub-dimension of the problem of the Office of the President giving him the power to indulge his fantasies.

As Gene Healy, author The Cult of the President: America’s Dangerous Dependence on Executive Power, wrote recently “The presidency itself has become a central fault line of polarization because the president increasingly has the power to reshape large swathes of American life,” for the Cato Institute.

The first priority must be to limit the damage caused by the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year. Trump / USAThis gave the president immunity from prosecution for vaguely defined “official acts.” A constitutional amendment that puts the president in his rightful place under the rule of law like other Americans would be preferable, but that would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate, followed by approval by three-quarters of the chamber. in the states, a level of bipartisan agreement now only seen in Aaron Sorkin’s private fantasies.

Democrats introduced The “No Kings Act” was introduced earlier this year ostensibly to police the Supreme Court, but the law is seriously flawed. This would not only declare presidents subject to criminal prosecution; would completely eliminate the jurisdiction of federal courts in matters involving presidential immunity; This would be a nuclear solution. open the door to more partisan interference Instead of fixing Congress’s own house, it’s in the judiciary.

A more realistic goal might be for Congress to take back war powers from the executive branch. Lawmakers have made some attempts in this direction in the last few years; for example, by adopting bipartisan resolutions. US intervention in Yemen And Unauthorized attack on Iran (both Trump vetoed). Congress must continue to insist that the president respect his authority to authorize wars.

Similarly, Congress should pass legislation requiring presidential national emergency declarations to automatically expire after 30 days unless approved by Congress. The excesses of COVID-19 quarantines and Trump’s various practices Threat to deploy the army domestically This should be more than enough to convince conservatives and liberals that the president should not have the power to unilaterally declare a state of emergency and extend it indefinitely.

In 2021, Sens. Mike Lee (R–Utah), Chris Murphy (D–Conn.), and Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). introduced the National Security Powers ActThis would strengthen congressional authority over arms sales, military actions taken under the War Powers Resolution, and declarations of national emergencies. More legislation like this is needed. Unfortunately, Congress’s interest in oversight powers changes with political windsand there hasn’t been enough sustained bipartisan momentum to do anything about it.

Finally, strengthening transparency and public records laws would ensure that at least an imperial ruler would be subject to public scrutiny. If we’re going to have a giant executive branch, we need to know what it’s up to. The current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is useless for tracking the government and has no practical consequences for officials who violate the law. (If a Reason you can subscribe read the new issue On why the Freedom of Information Act should be repealed and replaced with proactive disclosure.)

But doing any of these would require de-escalation, an arms reduction agreement between the two major political parties, and there would be no political incentive to do so unless voters created it.