If You Can Keep It

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. And  citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

President Trump has taken a confrontational approach to long-standing norms and Constitutional provisions regarding the separation of powers. He has stymied the rights of Congress to exercise oversight by refusing to bring Cabinet level appointments for confirmation and to provide requested materials.  He has diminished judicial branch integrity by implying that judicial interpretations of the law are influenced by their demographic background or political affiliation. He has taken unprecedented steps to expand his executive powers by invoking emergency conditions to transfer monies to his projects after such spending was disapproved by Congress, and by invoking  national security interests to justify his imposition of tariffs, including on traditional allies such as Canada. 

The President’s promise of unconventional governing was part of his appeal during the 2016 election, and many applaud the way that it has played out in practice.  His authoritarian behaviors, however, call into question the continued viability of America’s ability to maintain the separation of powers created by the founding fathers to ensure that the ambitions of the executive could be held in check by the other two.

Most Americans give little thought to the importance of this dynamic.  Focused on their daily lives, many feel that this is just partisan politics in play.  Others, who see the problem,  feel that they can’t  make a difference.  That’s where being a republic comes into play.  We democratically elect representatives to keep informed, represent our views, and safeguard our Constitution.

This brings us to our whistle-blower, who understood the gravity of a presidential action that sought to influence a foreign power [and hence be subject to blackmail by this power] to provide dirt on a political opponent. This  individual came forward, at some risk, precipitating our current imbroglio. Not surprisingly this individual has come under attack as being unpatriotic when just the opposite is true. Would that those who provided him/her with the information also stepped forward to publically voice their concerns.

Political realities ensure the President’s characterization of the call will be supported by most Republicans.  The same was true during the Congressional inquiry into President Nixon’s cover-up of the break-in of the Democratic National Committee offices. In the past select Republican leaders worked to ‘keep our republic’ by putting their country before party.  Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee put facts before party during the Watergate hearings by asking what the President knew and when he knew it.  Keeping our republic requires the same courage this time around. 

It's Not About the Wall

The current standoff between the President and Democratic Congressional leaders is more about
establishing the power Democrats hold in a divided government than in building a wall.  
It is a battle Democrats cannot afford to lose. If they blink now, the President will use similar
‘my way or the highway’ ploys to bend them to his will for the next two years.

Democrats have carefully chosen their battle.  They hold the high ground in this debate.
Most Americans are against building the wall and the facts support their position. Illegal migration is
down some 80 percent from peak levels,  and the number of illegals residing in the United States
continues to decline, albeit slightly. Today’s border issue deals with the large numbers of families
seeking asylum, groups that present themselves to U.S. authorities at points of legal entry.  This issue
is best addressed by expanding US immigration courts to eliminate the backlog and/or passing
legislation that limits access to these courts: more walls would not make a difference.

Secondly, they can avert charges of partisanship by responding to bipartisan legislation passed under
the leadership of the Republican-led Senate in December.  All the Democratic House has done is split
this legislation into two parts, one to fund Homeland Security and the second to fund the rest of
government for the balance of the fiscal year.  All they are asking the President to do is sign the
legislation he had Mitch McConnell pass in December.

One should not underestimate the resistance of the Democratic leadership to expanding the wall.    
Nancy Pelosi, in particular, has staked out a position that makes compromise exceedingly difficult.  
She has stated emphatically that the wall ‘is immoral’ and that she views DACA legislation as an entirely
separate issue.  Unless she walks this back, any Republican overture to link the two is a non-starter,
a far cry from earlier this year when Senate Minority Leader Schumer offered $25 billion for the wall
in return for DACA legislation.

The President is equally committed to winning this battle.  The wall was his signature promise, yet
nothing has been accomplished in this regard.  He is further held hostage by ongoing clarion calls to
his base for a wall to protect a nation which he proclaims as increasingly threatened by illegal
immigration.  To this end, he posted several thousand US troops at the border as a stop gap measure.
Critically, the President has no sense of the Constitutional limitations placed on his power by a
Democratic-led House.   Frustrated by Democratic intransigence to his demands, he has raised
the specter of using emergency powers to get the wall built.

How, then does this end?  Holding the high ground, Democrats seem content to let
Republicans sort it out: the bills are back in the Senate awaiting a vote, and Mitch McConnell has
to decide whether or not to break ranks with the President.  Pressure to open government will
continue to mount, but Trump never,never accepts defeat. It will take some time before he does so
and it will be a bitter pill for him to swallow. He will not get his wall and will have to live with the
consequences of a divided government.  Elections do have consequences.