By David Harsanyi
Tuesday, February 07, 2017
None of Barack Obama’s wrongdoings over the past eight
years absolve Donald Trump of his in the coming eight. Period.
If we want to get serious about the scourge of “norm
breaking,” though, we can’t ignore when
those norms were first shattered simply because it’s politically convenient for
some people to reset history.
In fact, pointing out Obama’s record is an effective way
to highlight some of its shared governing philosophy with Trumpism and
contemporary liberalism. “Whataboutism” — a tactic Democrats say is meant to
deflect criticism from the president — also helps hold people on both sides
accountable. The first step in kicking authoritarianism is admitting you have a
problem.
Anyone genuinely concerned about the corrosion of
constitutional processes has to view politics as a continuum. In the same way
Obama blamed George W. Bush for the economic difficulties he faced in 2008,
those who are troubled by executive overreach can point out that many of
Trump’s actions were normalized years earlier by the same people warning us
that the republic is collapsing. They want power, as well.
One of the few aspects of Obama’s legacy likely to
survive the Trump years is his mainstreaming of the notion that the executive
branch has an authority to do whatever it likes if the law-making branch “fails
to act” — a phrase Democrats used incessantly over the past six years.
Whatever your views of immigration policy are, for
example, if you believe it was acceptable for Obama to change the legality of
millions with a pen, but that Trump is Joseph Mengele for temporarily banning
travel for a few thousand potential refugees, you’re not really concerned about
executive abuse or process.
If you embraced a regulatory regime that demanded nuns
(and many others) purchase products that undermine their religious convictions,
then supported attempts to coerce them through the courts, you have no standing
to lecture anyone about the American tradition of respecting religious
diversity or process.
At the time of the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals
executive actions, some of us argued that the way Obama went about changing law
would be more destructive than anything he was doing with amnesty. Folks like
Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post
— and almost every liberal at the time — maintained that the “only reason
President Obama has to act on immigration reform is that House Speaker John
Boehner won’t.”
So is it still the prerogative of the president to
unilaterally act whenever he doesn’t get his way? Or is that power reserved for
super-special presidents? Or is it only for presidents who lose control of
Congress? Or is it for presidents who are polling poorly? Or are the rules
malleable depending on topic?
This weekend, Trump tweeted an inappropriate attack on
the “so-called” judge who issued a temporary restraining order blocking the
administration’s temporary ban on travelers from seven majority-Muslim
countries. Trump, as the saying goes played the man not the ball. A freakout
ensued, as they tend to do. This was, we were told, another “chilling”
norm-shattering event.
In a 2012 press conference, Obama lectured judges about a
case they were still deliberating. “Ultimately,” Obama explained, “I am
confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented,
extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of
a democratically elected Congress.”
Although far more articulate than Trump’s, this statement
is almost entirely untrue, and extraordinary. The court, in fact, is tasked
with deciding the constitutionality of laws — and one assumes all laws are
passed by democratically elected officials. Whether those laws have a “strong”
majority (Obamacare didn’t) is irrelevant. Also, by making this claim and
misleading Americans about the role of the court, the president sabotaged
separation of powers.
In 2010, after the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment
in the Citizens United case,
President Obama went in front of the entire nation and scolded the top court.
The New York Times couldn’t find a
single instance of any president doing the same. Later, Chief Justice John
Roberts commented that the “image of having the members of one branch of
government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and
hollering while the court – according the requirements of protocol – has to sit
there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”
If you were upset about Obama’s lack of regard for
protocol and accusation that the Supreme Court had destabilized democracy, you
should feel similarly about Trump’s attack on a judge. And if you were fine
with Obama’s rebuke, your contention that Trump’s tweet is more distressing
than State of the Union attack on the highest court is difficult to take
seriously.
And if you were cheering a presidency that promised to
fundamentally alter the trajectory of American life and governance eight years
ago, your concern for continuity and stability are also risible. The Left seems
unable to comprehend that governing through bureaucracies, courts, and coercion
can be viewed as illiberal, because they treat policy they like as moral
imperatives.
Voters are also human. You can’t spend two terms treating
half the country like moral cretins and not expect some pushback. Some
Republicans just want revenge. Many don’t care how things get done. Whatever
the case, Obama helped create unconstitutional expectations that numerous Trump
Republicans believe is the only way to remedy the past eight years. They
believe, as did Democrats, that the presidency is power and a little bit of
authoritarianism is okay as long as they get the right things done.
It’s as shortsighted now as it was then. For those who
believe the most important issue is
process, there’s nothing wrong about pointing it out.
No comments:
Post a Comment