So the other day I was having a conversation with my father and the subject of Donald Trump came up. He (my father) is a vehement opponent of Trump. He also thinks that Trump is a threat to the entire US democrary system. As he put it, “Putin, Chavez, Erdogan … Trump”. Each of the first three took over power democractically, and over time assumed more and more power until their democracies are not as freely democratic as they were when they first took power.
My counterargument was that the US has a much longer and stronger history of democracy than any of these other countries. He conceded this, but he feels that Obama has paved the way for Trump in this regard. Because Obama has expanded executive branch power, via significantly expanded use of executive orders to accomplish what would have been legislative goals and recess appointments and the like, and this is a precedent for Trump to the same or to perhaps go even further himself.
I’ve seen a lot of discussion about how since so much of Obama’s accomplishments have been via executive order, they’re relatively easy for Trump to reverse. But I’ve seen very little discussion of how Trump might take the same approach to governing as Obama did - or perhaps even more so - but with his own ideas of what type of sweeping change is worthy of an executive order.
And re recess appointments - while Obama got smacked down by the SC, he lost because he was in conflict with the legislative leaders. But with the Senate in Republican hands, Trump could theoretically do away with the Senate minority role entirely by using repeated recess appointments in the face of confirmation filibusters.
Well one side of the potential debate would be that Obama’s actions have enabled the emergence of a non-democratic autocrat. The other side would be that he hasn’t …
He’s used them for far more sweeping legislative-type change than any other president.
Well, if America in the 1950s can be considered a democracy, and Trump and Congressional Republicans point America back in that direction, it’s not really destroying democracy, as such.
Since the notion that Obama’s use of executive orders is somehow different from their prior application is important to your debate, could you provide evidence that his use of the executive order is qualitatively different?
Regardless, Obama never issued an executive order that would put his behavior in the same space as leaders like Erdogan, Putin or Chavez. Trump shows similar behavior patterns to these autocratic leaders and it is reasonable to be concerned that one mechanism he will use to punish his critics will take the form of executive orders. To put it another way, Obama didn’t point the way by his use of executive orders, but Trump will use executive orders and any other power his position gives him attack his critics. More importantly, he will use this power to punish those he views as the reason for the many failures of his policies he faces in his future.
I agree that our democracy is in a far better position to resist the centralizing of power that somebody like Erdogan is doing.
So what I got out of the article is that he, like other recent Presidents, have taken the opportunity to shape legislation provided to them by Congress with the executive order as one of the means by which the President can do so. Apparently this trend has accelerated over the years and I can only say that I remember Bush being criticized for similar behavior.
Assuming the article to be accurate, I see Congress and at least several recent Presidents to be responsible for the overall trend. Obama is just part of it. It’s a problem because Congress, when composed of the party in opposition to the President, seems to believe appropriate action is to completely hamstring the President. But they are really just ceding their role in government and taking responsibility for nothing, yet they hold these jobs.
This trend, which is not Obama’s responsibility alone at all, will now enable an authoritarian to use his power to punish his rivals, not to promote a conservative or liberal agenda in the face of a useless Congress. So I am pretty sure we will now see a clear qualitative difference.
He will keep them separate.
The business matters goes on this side of the desk, the President stuff goes on that side.
And if there’s not enough room, they can overlap a bit, no big deal.
Is he? I missed that bit - the news here is that Trump has said he thinks it would be a good idea for Farage to be appointed British Ambassador to the USA, which has caused an official silence in Downing St (broken only by the sound of suppressed titters from behind closed doors, and I get the impression even Farage - a stranger to embarrassment - has realised that’s going a bit far).
If NF were to try to become DT’s bagman in Scotland, I can hear the SNP’s response now - “Awa and bile ya heid, ya numpty!”
Even accepting the notation that Obama took executive orders further than other presidents (a matter that is open to debate on both sides) I don’t see how the “opens the way” for Donald Trump. Trump is going to do what Trump is going to do no matter what Obama did. The only way in which Obama’s behavior enables Trump is that when is criticized Trump for his inevitably pushing his authority to the limit, he can say “Well, your guy did it too!” While this might score a few tu quoque points on message boards, it doesn’t have a substantive effect.
By the way, the last recess appointment of a Supreme Court justice was William Brennan in 1956. He was appointed by that great threat to democracy, Dwight Eisenhower.
It has a huge effect. There are a lot of things which are technically possible but which don’t get actually done because of history/precedent. And if they are done, they provoke a counter-reaction from other parties with power to affect the decision. As this precedent is weakened by gradual encroachment, this deterrent effect is weakened.
So a Trump issuing an overarching executive order which exceeds by orders of magnitude anything of this sort attempted previously will provoke a much stronger reaction than that same executive order which pushes the envelope slightly further than where Obama has already taken it. (And this, in turn, influences the likelihood that it would be attempted to begin with.)
Recess appointments have a long and honorable tradition in this country. They are not a threat to democracy. The issue is use of recess appointments to circumvent the requirement for congressional approval. (Brennan was approved by congress near-unanimously.)
You need a 2/3 majority for that (if the current president is the guy who issued the order).
)