By Kevin D. Williamson
Friday, November 01, 2024
I try to be a responsible gun owner. Most of my guns are
kept locked up and unloaded—there are places in this world where you need to
have a safari rifle ready at hand, but where I live isn’t one of them, the
occasional bear wandering up to my back porch notwithstanding. The ammunition
is locked up separately. The loaded guns I keep for emergencies are secured in
biometric safes that require my fingerprint to open. Even so, I sometimes worry
that I am not doing enough. Guns are dangerous—that is their reason for
existing.
Donald Trump cannot legally own a firearm. There’s a good
reason we bar felons from doing so. And next week, Americans might very well
give him the keys to the most dangerous arsenal in the world—the one belonging
to the U.S. government.
Nuclear weapons? I don’t think the man should be allowed
to vote.
Partisan feelings are running strong right now, with the
election coming on Tuesday. But I’d like to invite readers to set aside those
sensitivities for just a few minutes and think about the presidency
itself.
Many Americans—somewhere between most and
practically
all, depending on whom you ask—believe that the coming election will be the
most consequential of their lifetimes. According to Rasmussen, only 16 percent
of Americans think otherwise. I’m in that 16 percent—a percentage that may very
well make that the most popular political position I hold. There are many
Americans who sincerely believe (and many more who pretend to believe) that
this election is in fact an existential crisis, that, should it go the wrong
way, that’s the end of the republic, of American democracy, of the
Constitution, etc.
If you believe that this election could mean the end of
the country, then you should conclude, as I have: The United States does indeed
have a Donald Trump problem or a Kamala Harris problem, but those are near-term
and relatively minor. The long-term, major problem is the presidency
itself.
If the presidency has, in fact, grown so powerful that
one election going the wrong way could mean the end of the country, then the
presidency is a political weapon of mass destruction, an office too dangerous
for anyone to hold. The presidency is J. R. R. Tolkien’s Ring of Power in a
country that is more like the corruptible Boromir than the
abstemious Galadriel.
It is important that such a man as Trump is unfit for the
presidency. It is much more consequential that the presidency is unfit for such
a man as Trump. And if you think that Kamala Harris is a dangerous Marxist
radical or whatever it is you heard from the little man on the radio, the same
principle applies. It is really the presidency that is the problem.
The American constitutional order is a really lovely
piece of political architecture, a feat of balance, harmony, and proportion. It
is the greatest instrument of its kind yet devised by mortal men, in no small
part because it assumes human limitations and incorporates them into the larger
order. Our form of government was not made for godlike philosopher-kings
operating dispassionately in the service of the highest things, but was instead
crafted for a nation of farmers, merchants, soldiers, pirates, slaveholders,
religious fanatics, and ungovernable hillbillies—it is an order designed not
for the people we aspire to be but for the people we are. It is a work of
genius, but it is not perfect.
The framers believed—wrongly, as it turned out—that the
great vice that needed containing in a republic was ambition. And so they set
the organs of government in opposition to one another, trusting that envy,
jealousy, and rivalry would do the work that no republican senate or signoria
had been able to manage: preventing the excessive accumulation of power in a
single office or in a single group of cronies, making it impossible to carry
out a successful conspiracy or usurpation. At the time, that looked like the
proper priority, and it worked for a time—until another vice, one even deadlier
than ambition, took root: sloth.
Our constitutional order really invests most of the
power—and responsibility—for managing federal affairs in Congress, the branch
established in Article 1. But running the affairs of the federal government of
this continental republic is a great deal of work, and, over time, members of
Congress began to voluntarily cede their powers to the executive branch. That
was a development at odds with the framers’ expectation that each organ of
government would jealously guard its own powers. The transformation of the U.S.
government from a government of laws made by lawmakers in the legislature
into a government that principally does its business via regulation and executive
orders originating in the executive branch under the command of the president
is probably best understood as an attempt by a lazy Congress to maintain
power (via enabling statute) over affairs for which it did not wish to maintain
responsibility. And so, to take one example from a million, the
difficult technical question of how many gun parts you can sell somebody before
you have sold them a gun is punted by the lawmakers over to the regulators at
the ATF. That way, nobody in Congress has to go on the record voting for or
against any particular legal standard or procedure. In other instances, such as
the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, political entrepreneurs who would
like to have won a victory in Congress but found themselves unable to do so
have used the executive power to make an end-run around the lawmakers and the
lawmaking bodies.
The result of this has been the accumulation of vast
powers in the presidency, an office that never was intended to be the
general-purpose receptacle of such powers. Congress has slowly transferred even
its most important powers to the president: This country has been in a more or
less constant state of war for the whole of my lifetime, but the last time
Congress actually declared a war was in June 1942. If you want a sense of how
long ago in history that was, consider that it was several … months …
before Joe Biden was born. That date may jump out at you a little bit: In 1942,
the U.S. already was involved in World War II, having made a declaration of war
in 1941 after Pearl Harbor. The 1942 declaration added Hungary, Bulgaria, and
Romania to the list—and the fact that Congress felt obliged to act in a formal
way to do so rather than in the willy-nilly mode of current practice should be
instructive.
Today, presidents are empowered to carry out acts of war
with very little input from Congress, as Donald Trump did vis-à-vis Iran and
Qassem Soleimani, or to assassinate U.S. citizens, as Barack Obama did in the
matter of Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki.
This isn’t limited to war powers: Presidents enter international agreements
without bothering to ask the Senate to ratify a treaty, as Obama did with the
Paris Agreement, or effectively nullify the law, as Obama did with certain
illegal immigrants, or spend money without congressional authorization, as Joe
Biden attempted to do in his loan-forgiveness scheme and other projects.
Congressional Republicans at one point estimated (with CBO confirmation) that Biden
had spent more than a half-trillion dollars without proper authorization—and
then did approximately squat about it. Presidents act unilaterally to prohibit
politically unpopular private-sector developments, as with Biden and the
Keystone XL pipeline. Americans can be law-abiding citizens on Monday and be
felons on Tuesday without doing anything different and without any lawmaker
voting on a change to a single statute, as Biden’s ATF
has demonstrated from time to time.
The American presidency is the most dangerous job in the
world—not to the president, but to us.
And if you believe, as J.D. Vance once insisted, that
Donald Trump is a potential American Hitler—or if you believe that Kamala
Harris is the Antichrist, as Trump’s excitable friends claim—then you
should want to put the presidency back into a relatively small box and nail the
lid shut. You wouldn’t give a toddler a loaded gun—why give nuclear weapons to
a psychopath, a mental incompetent, or an aspiring tyrant?
Or, you know, to someone who is all three?
No comments:
Post a Comment