By Charles C. W. Cooke
Saturday, May 20, 2017
In the New York
Times on Wednesday, Ross Douthat used his customarily eloquent voice to
endorse an idea that has bubbled below the surface since the latest round of
crises began to rock the White House: The 25th Amendment to the Constitution,
Douthat proposed, should be used to remove the president from office.
In Douthat’s estimation, such a move is necessary because
of Trump’s “incapacity to really govern, to truly execute the duties that fall
to him to carry out.” In fact, Douthat considers that it is inaction that presents the greater risk.
“Leaving a man this witless and unmastered in an office with these powers and
responsibilities,” he writes, “is an act of gross negligence,” for Trump, at
root, is a “child.”
That President Trump is a peculiarity is, alas, beyond
doubt. But even if one were to sign on completely to Douthat’s devastating
characterization — and I’m not averse to doing so — there would remain a
crucial difference between the best diagnosis and the best remedy. It is
possible that we are in for a bumpy few years under the stewardship of this
administration; it is possible that we are in for worse. It is also possible —
if not guaranteed — that to stage a legalized coup would be extremely unwise. And
at no point in his essay does Douthat seriously grapple with that possibility.
The 25th Amendment was intended to do two things. First,
to clarify the line of succession in the event that a president is killed or
incapacitated. Second, to allow for the “immediate” transfer of power to the
vice president in such a case as the incumbent is “unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office.” In both its text and its original public
meaning, the amendment was designed to deal with a situation such as Woodrow
Wilson’s stroke or the assassination of John F. Kennedy; it was not designed to kneecap the ill-tempered
or the incompetent. Should it be used to do just that, a terrible precedent
would be established.
Douthat’s essential contention is that desperate times
call for desperate measures. But there would be no more effective way of
rendering our times more desperate than they already are than to go down this
rocky road. President Trump came into office on the back of a vehemently
populist wave, the central conceit of which was that the United States has long
been despoiled by arrogant, out-of-touch elites who get their own way
regardless of the people’s will. What do we imagine would happen to these
suspicions should a cabinet full of the rich and well-connected contrive to
strip the president of his powers on the nebulous grounds that he is “witless”?
It is just not Donald Trump who says system is “rigged.” So does Bernie
Sanders. So does Elizabeth Warren. There are forces at play here that would be
better off respected.
This is not, of course, to suggest that President Trump
should consider himself politically immortal; if, as seems possible, he has
committed a provable crime, impeachment must remain on the table. But let us
not convince ourselves that this is analogous to what Douthat has seen fit to
propose. Impeachment is driven by Congress, and is thus both more transparent
and more democratic. The 25th Amendment option, by unlovely contrast, would
constitute a sanitized palace coup. Moreover, while the charges in an
impeachment can in theory be anything at all, any successful attempt at removal
would need to be assiduously argued and built upon evidentiary concrete. The
more misty charge of “unfitness for office” would not.
What, after all, constitutes “unfitness”? Who decides who
is “fit”? And what should we think of the cabinet members who, in deposing
Trump, would change their minds on the question in an instant? For the
president to be removed on the grounds that he was “childish,” both Trump’s inner
circle and the party that campaigned for him would have to make that unpleasant
case, and to do so while a fully conscious Trump had a public right of reply.
In such a circumstance, voters would reasonably inquire as to what had changed
since November, and they would likely be backed up by a Congress that would
still be required to arbitrate. The 25th Amendment is long and unwieldy, but it
says nothing whatsoever about approval ratings.
Since the January inauguration, critics of this president
have grown progressively hyperbolic. Time and time again, we have heard words
that did not fit their context — words that did serious damage to our already
battered discourse. Trump, it has been said, is an “autocrat,” a “fascist,” and
an “enemy of democracy.” He has even been guilty of a “coup” of his own. Are
these same voices going to look his voters squarely in the eye and tell them
that they back an eviction? If they are, I would advise them to meet some of
those they will vex before they so peremptorily pull out the rug. America is an
angry, partisan, resentful place at present, and the ballot box is one of our
most effective release valves. Should its utility come to be questioned by the
electorate, we will see a desperate backlash of the sort we have not seen in a
long while. And this time, it might not be peaceful.
No comments:
Post a Comment