Bloomberg the Company & Its
ProductsBloomberg Terminal Demo RequestBloomberg Anywhere Remote LoginBloomberg Customer Support
ProductsBloomberg Terminal Demo RequestBloomberg Anywhere Remote LoginBloomberg Customer Support
MenuSearch
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Politics & Policy
Trump Is Breaking the Presidency to Save His
Re-Election
Re-Election
The presidency
was designed to unite the states, not further divide them.
was designed to unite the states, not further divide them.
By
President Trump in the
foreground, President Jackson behind.
foreground, President Jackson behind.
Photographer:
Oliver Contreras/Getty Images
Oliver Contreras/Getty Images
Noah Feldman is a
Bloomberg Opinion columnist and host of the podcast “Deep Background.” He is a
professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court
Justice David Souter. His books include “The Three Lives of James Madison:
Genius, Partisan, President.”
Bloomberg Opinion columnist and host of the podcast “Deep Background.” He is a
professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court
Justice David Souter. His books include “The Three Lives of James Madison:
Genius, Partisan, President.”
President
Donald Trump’s encouragement of protests against states’ stay-in-place orders
is un-presidential in the colloquial sense: it’s unbecoming of a president. But
Trump’s latest gambit is un-presidential in a much deeper sense, too. It
contradicts the very constitutional justification for why we have a president
in the first place.
Donald Trump’s encouragement of protests against states’ stay-in-place orders
is un-presidential in the colloquial sense: it’s unbecoming of a president. But
Trump’s latest gambit is un-presidential in a much deeper sense, too. It
contradicts the very constitutional justification for why we have a president
in the first place.
The whole
point of the presidency is to have an elected official who represents the
interests of the entire country, not of a specific state or electoral district.
That is, the purpose of the presidency is unification. Trump’s goal, to the
contrary, is to drive state-by-state division. He’s undermining the very ideal
of a unified United States in pursuit of electoral advantage.
point of the presidency is to have an elected official who represents the
interests of the entire country, not of a specific state or electoral district.
That is, the purpose of the presidency is unification. Trump’s goal, to the
contrary, is to drive state-by-state division. He’s undermining the very ideal
of a unified United States in pursuit of electoral advantage.
To
understand why we have a president, it’s useful to consider why we don’t have
a prime minister. After all, the founding fathers were creating a republic, in
which all officials would be elected and nobody would be above the law. If the
United States of America was not to have a king, it would have made logical sense
for its executive to be a member of the legislature, first among equals.
understand why we have a president, it’s useful to consider why we don’t have
a prime minister. After all, the founding fathers were creating a republic, in
which all officials would be elected and nobody would be above the law. If the
United States of America was not to have a king, it would have made logical sense
for its executive to be a member of the legislature, first among equals.
But the
framers of the Constitution wanted to create a different version of the
separation of powers than Britain’s. The president would not be a king, but he
and his executive branch would play some of the role that the king played in
the British constitution.
framers of the Constitution wanted to create a different version of the
separation of powers than Britain’s. The president would not be a king, but he
and his executive branch would play some of the role that the king played in
the British constitution.
And the
chief advantage of a king, according to a theory that had gained prominence in
18th century Britain, was that he would promote the interests of not merely one
faction of the people, but of the whole country. A king who stood for everybody
was a “patriot king,” ruling for the greater good of the patria, or
nation. “To espouse no party, but to govern like the common father of his
people, is so essential to the character of a Patriot King, that he who does
otherwise forfeits the title,” wrote Henry St. John, First Viscount
Bolingbroke, in his aptly named book, “The Idea of a Patriot King.”
chief advantage of a king, according to a theory that had gained prominence in
18th century Britain, was that he would promote the interests of not merely one
faction of the people, but of the whole country. A king who stood for everybody
was a “patriot king,” ruling for the greater good of the patria, or
nation. “To espouse no party, but to govern like the common father of his
people, is so essential to the character of a Patriot King, that he who does
otherwise forfeits the title,” wrote Henry St. John, First Viscount
Bolingbroke, in his aptly named book, “The Idea of a Patriot King.”
The framers of the U.S. Constitution designed a system in which
members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate were chosen from
the states. Although the framers expressed the hope that these legislators
would think of the whole nation, not just the districts they represented, they
were also realists. They understood that members of Congress would want to be
re-elected, and would therefore favor the interests of their home states and
districts.
members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate were chosen from
the states. Although the framers expressed the hope that these legislators
would think of the whole nation, not just the districts they represented, they
were also realists. They understood that members of Congress would want to be
re-elected, and would therefore favor the interests of their home states and
districts.
The
president, in contrast, was elected nationally. He (along with the
vice-president) was the only elected official who could claim to have been
chosen by the whole people. The president was therefore supposed to be a
patriot president, above party or regional faction.
president, in contrast, was elected nationally. He (along with the
vice-president) was the only elected official who could claim to have been
chosen by the whole people. The president was therefore supposed to be a
patriot president, above party or regional faction.
It turned
out to be too much to ask for presidents to eschew political parties. Even
George Washington, whom the framers expected to pull off that lofty goal, came
to be seen as a partisan Federalist by his second term in office.
out to be too much to ask for presidents to eschew political parties. Even
George Washington, whom the framers expected to pull off that lofty goal, came
to be seen as a partisan Federalist by his second term in office.
Yet
presidents have, for the most part, managed to govern with an eye to national
interests, rather than regional ones. That may be attributed mostly to their
desire to be re-elected, which ordinarily takes a national coalition. But it
also stems from the nature of the office itself: The president is the chief
executive of the whole country, and usually understands himself as such.
presidents have, for the most part, managed to govern with an eye to national
interests, rather than regional ones. That may be attributed mostly to their
desire to be re-elected, which ordinarily takes a national coalition. But it
also stems from the nature of the office itself: The president is the chief
executive of the whole country, and usually understands himself as such.
The
classic example is Andrew Jackson, whom Trump claims to consider a hero.
Jackson was partisan and ideological, not to mention an advocate of killing
Native Americans and driving them from their ancestral lands. But when South
Carolina tried to nullify federal law, threatening the union, Jackson firmly
rejected the very idea, going so far as to intimate that any serious attempt at
disunion would be met with vigorous force. Jackson put union first.
classic example is Andrew Jackson, whom Trump claims to consider a hero.
Jackson was partisan and ideological, not to mention an advocate of killing
Native Americans and driving them from their ancestral lands. But when South
Carolina tried to nullify federal law, threatening the union, Jackson firmly
rejected the very idea, going so far as to intimate that any serious attempt at
disunion would be met with vigorous force. Jackson put union first.
Trump,
however, is now doing the very opposite. Instead of embracing the idea of a
unified national policy on stay-in-place orders, he is fomenting protests that
are meant to force certain states to break the mold by opening sooner than
others. The aim of the protests is precisely to create a national patchwork,
with different states adopting different policies. And Trump’s motives seem
straightforwardly partisan: he wants to motivate his base, and he wants to take
credit for any opening that eventually occurs.
however, is now doing the very opposite. Instead of embracing the idea of a
unified national policy on stay-in-place orders, he is fomenting protests that
are meant to force certain states to break the mold by opening sooner than
others. The aim of the protests is precisely to create a national patchwork,
with different states adopting different policies. And Trump’s motives seem
straightforwardly partisan: he wants to motivate his base, and he wants to take
credit for any opening that eventually occurs.
The
problem isn’t that Trump wants to get re-elected. It’s that to get there, he is
actively seeking to break any semblance of coordinated, unified national
policy. He is, it seems, prepared to break the traditional presidency in order
to hold onto the office.
problem isn’t that Trump wants to get re-elected. It’s that to get there, he is
actively seeking to break any semblance of coordinated, unified national
policy. He is, it seems, prepared to break the traditional presidency in order
to hold onto the office.
If the
presidency becomes a bully pulpit not to hold the country together but to break
it apart, we’d be better off having no president at all. Somewhere, the shade
of Andrew Jackson is roiling with disapproval.
presidency becomes a bully pulpit not to hold the country together but to break
it apart, we’d be better off having no president at all. Somewhere, the shade
of Andrew Jackson is roiling with disapproval.
This column does
not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.
not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the editor responsible for this
story:
Sarah Green Carmichael at sgreencarmic@bloomberg.net
story:
Sarah Green Carmichael at sgreencarmic@bloomberg.net
No comments:
Post a Comment