To reduce political polarization, make presidents less powerful

Experts have written a lot over the past decade about how to reduce polarization and rancor in America, and now that Donald Trump is re-elected, we’re likely to hear even more about civility and finding common ground. But there is one solution to partisan political sectarianism that doesn’t require listening to your uncle’s opinion about drag queens: reducing the power and importance of the presidency in American life.

To be clear, the need to rein in executive power did not suddenly arise when Trump was elected. The best day to limit executive power was yesterday, but today will do as well. The obvious fact is that Trump will re-enter the Oval Office more powerful than ever, the beneficiary of decades of accumulated privilege handed to the executive branch by an apathetic Congress and an unserious Supreme Court.

The problem that Trump dreams happily about using the state to take revenge on his many critics and political enemies is a consequence of the problem that the presidential administration gives him the opportunity to indulge his fantasies.

As Gene Healy, author of the book, said: The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to the Executive Branch, recently wrote for the Cato Institute: “The presidency itself has become a central fault line of polarization because the president has increasing power to change vast swathes of American life.”

The first priority must be to limit the damage caused by the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year. Trump vs USAwhich granted the president immunity from prosecution for vaguely defined “official acts.” A constitutional amendment placing the President in his rightful place, under the rule of law like every other American, would be preferable, but would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, followed by three-quarters ratification. . declares a level of bipartisan agreement now only found in the private fantasies of Aaron Sorkin.

Democrats introduced The “No Kings Act” was introduced earlier this year ostensibly to check the Supreme Court, but the legislation is seriously flawed. He won’t just say that presidents are subject to criminal prosecution; it would completely strip federal courts of jurisdiction over presidential immunity issues—a nuclear solution that open the door to further party interference in the judiciary rather than repairing Congress’s own chamber.

A more realistic goal would be for Congress to wrest its war powers from the executive branch. Lawmakers have taken some steps in this direction over the past few years, such as passing bipartisan resolutions against US involvement in Yemen And unauthorized aggression against Iran (both of which Trump vetoed). Congress must continue to insist that the president respect his authority to authorize wars.

Likewise, Congress should pass legislation that would require a presidential declaration of a national emergency to automatically end after 30 days if it is not approved by Congress. The excesses of COVID-19 quarantine and Trump’s various measures threats to deploy armed forces within the country should be more than enough to convince conservatives and liberals alike that the president should not have the unilateral power to declare and extend a state of emergency indefinitely.

In 2021, Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Bernie Sanders (R-Vermont) introduced That National Security Powers Actwhich would strengthen Congress’s power over arms sales, military actions taken under the War Powers Resolution, and the declaration of a national emergency. More laws like this are needed. Unfortunately, Congress’ interest in its oversight powers changes with the political windsand there hasn’t been enough sustained bipartisan momentum to do anything about it.

Finally, tightening transparency and public reporting laws would at least subject the imperial executive to public scrutiny. If we’re going to create a leviathan executive, we need to know what it’s up to. The current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is useless for monitoring the government, and has no practical consequences for officials who flout the law. (If you Cause subscriber, you can read the latest issue on why the Freedom of Information Act should be repealed and replaced with proactive disclosure.)

But that would require de-escalation—an arms reduction pact between the two major political parties—and there would be no political impetus for it unless voters created one.