What to Expect in Trump's Second Term
I mention "Trump's Second Term" here because I believe Donald Trump will do everything he can to continue in office. If the election is close at all, his team will engage in lawsuits in several states to prevent states from declaring a winner. I do not know if he will attempt to delay the official counting of electoral votes, though that would not surprise me at all. However, it is also very possible that Trump will win outright. After all, that is why we hold elections. Donald Trump is not without popularity. Authoritarians throughout history rarely just take over without the support of significant segments of the populace.
Given that Donald Trump seems particularly unimpressed by the Constitutional doctrine of separation of powers (remember, he already said that he somehow has the power to adjourn Congress to avoid advice and consent on selection of officials; he has already publicly questioned why we need judges), he will advance a government of one-party rule without the inconvenience of Congressional oversight. So here is my modest list (for now):
CONGRESSIONAL and JUDICIAL RELATIONS
1. Congressional oversight will become a dead letter. Not only controversial hearings, as when the House of Representatives tried to compel members of the White House staff to testify during the Impeachment Hearings, but routine hearings will not be attended by members of the administration. Along with this, I would suggest that executive agencies will be ordered to maintain a stance of "non-cooperation" with the Government Accountability Office (the GAO), which audits and examines agency compliance with law.
2. Government by executive order will continue unabated. Now, we are told that Congress has "the power of the purse." But if Congress continues to appropriate money, it has already been shown that it is a small matter to re-appropriate here and there. My expectation is that the second Trump administration will be far less concerned about Congress passing laws to enact certain policies, when the administration can simply write executive orders, and find the money somewhere to carry these out.
3. More recess appointments and appointments of "acting" executive agency heads will be made with impunity. The Trump administration has already demonstrated the fecklessness of the Senate leadership in responding to these kinds of actions. It is hard to imagine that a majority Republican Senate will suddenly find a crate of courage hiding in some old Civil War tunnel in the Capitol.
4. Courts will be packed with openly partisan justices and judges. This will be important for the continuance of "Trumpism." What I can Trumpism is an attempt at one-party rule, aided and abetted by adults who should know better. Trumpism offers sops to the supporters of the movement. So, of course, all courts will be anti-abortion because many of Trump's supporters claim that as a single issue. My guess is that Trump himself has no compunctions about abortion, moral or otherwise. That is not the real reason cooperative justices and judges are needed. The real reason they are needed is to thwart state attorneys general and others who might want to sue the administration over other policy matters that enable government by executive order.
POLICING
1. The move toward a uniformed federal police force will continue unabated. The "DHS Police" employed by Chad Wolf in Portland and elsewhere was an ad hoc force. There is no such thing as DHS Police, except to the extent that various agencies in DHS do have police powers over specified jurisdictions. The Federal Protective Service jurisdiction is protection of federal property and "critical infrastructure." It was this jurisdiction that was extraordinarily expanded in Portland. I am suggesting that there will be an organized, trained, and equipped "Federal Police Force" that can be sent to any locale in the United States with little or no pretext.
2. The administration will encourage further lawlessness. This one is dicey, even for the Trump administration. It is hard to loose unorganized bands of thugs on the populace while maintaining control. Other authoritarian states have certainly found this to be the case. However, I fully expect that the second Trump administration will at least allow self-styled militias to patrol city streets, inflict some damage, and generally intimidate those who would otherwise protest the actions of the administration. Of course, this is a "Pandora's Box" and the outcomes are unpredictable.
3. Along with the above, I unfortunately expect more lawlessness in general. I need to be clear. I am not in favor of violent protest. I do not think that leftists burning down cities does anything to promote their causes. However, I suspect there will be continued violence. In a sense, the administration welcomes this, as it does provide pretext (which it barely needs, or does not need at all) to insert federal troops.
EDUCATION
1. A traditional Republican belief is that local education should stay local, with very little input and oversight from the Department of Education. Republicans will continue to utter this, even as the Department of Education sets new standards for curriculum. Trump has already announced that schools should focus on "American Exceptionalism," a well-worn term that means almost everything and almost nothing. In the case of Trump, it will mean mandatory instruction in things like the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, the Evils of Socialism, and the Heroism of Rugged Individualist Businessmen like Fred and Donald Trump. One of the problems of education is that people who argue about it insist on some "either-or" doctrine of education. American History is not pretty. Neither are we an evil nation. In fact, we have accomplished a lot, and provided a beacon to the rest of the world. But we have done so unevenly, and in spite of ourselves. What we need to educate kids on is how to examine evidence, think critically, and make up their own minds.
2. Along with that, the Department of Education will begin to insist that universities and colleges "protect the First Amendment." Never mind that this is already done. Those who have, for years, insisted that universities are packed with leftists who indoctrinate young people have an advocate in the White House. There are leftists in universities. There are also some libertarians and conservatives, as well.The point is that higher education is specifically about allowing people to question their own beliefs. People of all political stripes have made major miscalculations during the past several years when they have produced papers written in college by candidates for office. It also matters not a bit what someone's grades were in college. These years are supposed to be about open thinking, but for some reason that scares us. The administration will formalize this fear by insisting that everyone graduating from a four-year college will at least be taught the basics of the doctrine (as yet unformed) of "American [really Trumpist] Exceptionalim."
MILITARY AND GUARD RELATIONS
1. The relationship between the Trump administration and the Armed Forces, including the National Guard, will remain strained until Trump can install compliant civilian and uniformed leadership. Even though the current Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, has generally been a supporter of this administration, he has shown a bit too much independence when he slow-rolled the Trump plan to deploy active duty military forces into hot spots like Washington, D.C. and Portland. Epser will, of course, not be in the second Trump administration. Trump will find senior civilians of the Chad Wolf mindset, and general officers who are compliant enough to support his whims.
2. This is particularly problematic, and bears more discussion. Contrary to what many civilians believe, the job of the military is not simply to salute smartly and follow orders. In fact, the specific job of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is enshrined in law (the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986), and it is to offer the president "sound military advice." The Chairman of the JCS is not a commander for that very reason. The Chairman is there to provide honest and unvarnished advice. That advice might be uncomfortable and contrary. That is why having a petty and vindictive man in the Oval Office, who demands only loyalty, is dangerous. He doesn't have to take that advice. He doesn't even have to listen. If the Chairman of the JCS is the highest-ranking "yes man" in uniform, we have a problem.
3. The National Guard relationship has always been complicated by the prerogatives of governors and the military Services. This can only deteriorate under the second Trump administration, when funding is threatened if governors do not comply with Trump's demands that National Guard are used as supplemental law enforcement officers.
4. Complicating all of this is that the modern military, since the end of World War II, but increasingly since the advent of the all-volunteer force, has been steeped in the Samuel Huntington doctrines of "objective control" by civilian leadership and "neutral competence" on the part of military officers. That is, the modern military is a professional force that realizes it is under that command and control of the "National Command Authority" of the President and Secretary of Defense. The professional military accepts Congressional prerogatives of funding and oversight. The other part of that bargain is that all presidents have accepted the professionalism of the military, and have at least tried to avoid the appearance of politicizing military service. Now, it is naive to believe that the DOD has not acted in self-interest over the years, especially in matters of funding. It is also naive to believe there has not been some politicizing going on. However, Donald Trump has simply taken this to new levels. He "demands loyalty," as he famously told James Comey. The worry is what this will do to the integrity of a professional military.
AND THE REST OF PUBLIC SERVICE
1. Loyalty Oaths? Full disclosure here: I am a retired Air Force officer. That means that I get a month retirement check equal to 65 percent of my final base pay, because I served 26 years. I do not really have to do anything for that check. It is true that I was subject to recall for a few years, but in reality the Department of Defense has used recall of retired personnel only sparingly. However, what if I had to sign a simple declaration to receive my retirement check? The declaration would simply say that I would not speak ill of the government or the administration. It is not as if actions like that are unprecedented in America's history. Donald Trump has made clear that "loyalty" is his overriding value--it may be his only value. Will we demand that civil servants, military personnel, and law enforcement personnel make such a pledge? It really need not be some grand "Nuremberg Oath" with troops in formation. Just a simple piece of paper. How many in government will sign that simple piece of paper, and what outcomes will that produce?
Comments
Post a Comment