Constraints on the office means America could survive President Trump
IT HAS dawned far too late on many pundits, and on the political establishment, that Donald Trump might actually win the Republican nomination for the president. Now, of course, the question is rather starker — could he win the presidency, and what happens if he does?
The conclusion, in my experience of talking to many Washington policy types of both political persuasions, frequently includes a swear word. Foreign diplomats, officials, and policy experts often take a similar view.
For sure, Trump is like no politician in recent American history. For now, I don’t necessarily expect him to win — his supporters might be enthusiastic, but he could be even more effective at getting his opponents out to vote against him.
Still, there are routes by which he could win, particularly if Democrats fail to come out for Hillary Clinton, as expected.
The Trump phenomenon is part of a much wider — perhaps even global — political trend. This could have implications well beyond the United States.
Indeed, America is one of the few countries that could withstand a Trump-type presidency.
For all his rhetoric, a President Trump would, like all other occupants of the Oval Office, be constrained by the constitution, judiciary, and Congress.
Even if the Republicans do retain control of the House, and of the Senate, many members of Congress are already voicing their opposition. And if a Trump presidency proves as contentious as many expect, it could easily deliver to the Democrats control of Congress in 2018.
Earlier this month, I took a shot at imagining, in more detail, what future historians might make of a Trump presidency. My conclusion was that he would last one term, achieve much less than he expected, and possibly waste considerable energy on minor changes to property laws.
That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have an effect, particularly on the world’s perception of the United States. The optics of his rhetoric on Islam are already playing badly in the Middle East. As president, that — particularly if tied to more indiscriminate military action — could prove disastrous.
Still, overall he would be restrained. And, just like the current incumbent of the White House, Barack Obama, would probably leave largely frustrated by what he had failed to do.
While Trump is a unique political creature, the forces he is riding go much deeper and wider — and have been growing for a while. Ultimately, what he is taking on is much deeper societal frustration — particularly with political elites on both sides.
His strength is that he looks authentic, and he has successfully used both social and traditional media to persuade huge swathes of supporters that he is the candidate most like them and most in tune with their — not always politically correct — instincts.
On the left, in the United States, we have simultaneously seen Bernie Sanders harnessing the same frustrations to mount a credible challenge to Hillary Clinton, in vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. In Europe, we’ve seen the rise of both non-traditional left and right parties.
We’ve also seen unexpectedly left-wing leaders — for example, Britain’s Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn — seize control of what had been much more moderate, mainstream political parties.
In most cases, those elected have remained committed to operating within established political systems. Some of the more radical groups — such as Marine Le Pen’s far right, in France — have performed worse than many expected. (France is, after all, a country that endured Nazi occupation in relatively recent history.)
That may not always be the case, though — none of these frustrations are going away and, in Europe, the migrant crisis may yet fuel a further move, either to the extremes or to more generic authoritarianism. The chaos of the 1990s in Russia, after all, set the scene for the rise of Vladimir Putin.
Already, some Europe experts talk of a rise in authoritarianism, particularly in the communist states of the former Eastern Bloc. Hungary has seen the rise of Viktor Orban and his far-right Jobbik party. Poland has seen something similar, while this month’s elections in Slovakia saw a much-better-than-expected performance by the very far right.
Like Trump, these leaders are invariably nationalist, more isolationist, anti-globalisation, in general, and anti-migrant, in particular.
That’s when political systems become really important. In the United Kingdom, the parliamentary system usually keeps the fringe parties — such as the anti-EU, UK Independence Party — almost entirely sidelined from elected office. (Although the rise of the Scottish National Party, which now controls most parliamentary seats in Scotland, is probably another sign of this trend.)
In Germany, however, a much more proportional representation-based system means that a radical Trump-type figure could make himself a kingmaker in German politics with a small share of votes, say 25%. In the 1930s, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were able to use that kind of platform to take control of the entire country.
The United States isn’t Weimar Germany, and Donald Trump isn’t Hitler (despite the words of comedian Louis C.K.) But it says a lot about the United States’ founders, and system of government, that it could likely survive a politician worse than The Donald.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
