Democrats seem to think Trump’s presidency is a threat to American governance. That might be a touch hyperbolic. One reason they cite is Trump’s disregard for written and unwritten precedents, institutional “norms,” that have long governed the way our representative republic operates. As evidence they offer that he hasn’t released his tax returns, he implied during the 2016 campaign that he wouldn’t accept the results of the election if he lost and he declared a “national emergency” to fund his border wall.
Point: Trump’s transgressions
Most of the norms Trump is accused of violating are behavioral, rather than structural. For instance he watches too much television, tweets like a tween, he attacks the “fake news media,” calls reporters “the enemy of people,” and revoked Jim Acosta’s press credentials temporarily. He lashed out at John McCain, his employees’ spouses, and the people investigating his administration.
Not only that, he lies the way a normal person does. He does not indulge in dignified obfuscation and plausible deniability. In short, he is pretty plain spoken and ignores the etiquette that has long governed the way politicians are supposed to lie. Love him or hate him he’s right there in front of you. What you see is what you get.
Counterpoint: Democrat’s own actions
For their part, out of one side of their mouth Democrats have made “restoring norms” a cornerstone of their campaign to remove Trump from office. Out of the other side of their mouths, the party’s presidential hopefuls are rapidly lining up behind radical changes to long-established structural norms. The Democrat hopefuls believe dashing our structural and institutional norms will help them enact their agendas.
So, when it comes to seizing and holding power, Democrats appear all too ready to scuttle the norms that stand in their way. But let somebody else violate the accepted behavioral norms… Well suffice it to say they don’t subscribe to the old idiom, “what’s sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.”
Let’s list a few examples: Elizabeth Warren proposed eliminating the Electoral College. Other Democratic candidates have jumped on the bandwagon. It’s not a new idea. It tends to happen when Democrats lose. They wouldn’t be making the argument if Hillary had lost the popular vote.
Then there’s the issue of “court packing to make room for more liberals justices. It is premised on the idea that Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh and whoever Trump nominates to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg were illegitimately installed. Some Democrats are keen to see court packing become a litmus test issue for 2020 candidates.
And there is abolition of the filibuster in the Senate. That is considered beneficial to easing passage of legislation by simple majority. Democrat activists are especially enthusiastic about getting rid of the filibuster, because they realize that as long as it remains in place, enacting the Green New Deal will be impossible.
Conclusion
These certainly aren’t the only institutional norms and constitutional provisions Democrats would like to “update.” The sorts of structural changes they are proposing would have far more significant consequences than Trump’s norm-violating “tone.” Sometimes finding a little perspective adds value.
Ref:
Washington Freedom Beacon, Andrew Stiles, March 20, 2019