US Institutions After Trump
Jan 20, 2021DARON ACEMOGLU
It would be a mistake for Americans to take comfort in the fact that their
democratic institutions survived four years of attacks by Donald Trump,
culminating in the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol. In fact, most of
these institutions have been failing and are in desperate need of repair and
reform.
BOSTON – The storming of the US Capitol by Donald Trump’s supporters on
January 6 may be remembered as a turning point in American history. The
insurrection, incited by the president himself, has raised profound questions
about the kind of political institutions future generations will inherit.
1.
Two narratives have come to describe this nadir of an already-tumultuous
presidential transition in the United States. The first frames the Capitol
insurrection as a singular failure of US institutions, which implies that the
solution is to clamp down on right-wing extremists, social-media echo chambers,
and their mainstream enablers.
But while such measures are long overdue, this narrative fails to capture
the extent to which the Capitol attack was a direct result of Trump’s
presidency, or the economic hardship and social grievances that led to Trump’s rise.
In addition to leaving the country alarmingly polarized, Trump’s single term
also fundamentally damaged US institutions, and decimated political norms that
a well-functioning democracy needs.
The second prevailing narrative is even wider of the mark. It celebrates
those Republicans – like Georgia’s Voting Systems Implementation Manager,
Gabriel Sterling – who stood up against
Trump’s falsehoods and attempts to overturn the election. This narrative frames
the failure of the MAGA coup as inevitable, owing to the fundamental strength
of US institutions. And yet, this mythical institutional resilience has been
notably absent for most of the past four years. Even after they themselves were
attacked, a majority of congressional Republicans were happy – or at least
willing – to go along with a presidential agenda that threatened the future of
the Republic.
Likewise, while many have praised the judiciary for maintaining its
independence, the courts were only partly effective in stopping Trump’s
unlawful decrees. The sheer scale of cronyism and corruption – with the Trump
family routinely mixing government and private business – has yet to be fully
investigated or appreciated. The Republican Party brushed off Trump’s attempt
to withhold $400 million in military aid unless Ukraine launched an
investigation into Joe Biden and his son.
Republicans were also silent when Trump fired Gordon D.
Sondland, his ambassador to the European Union, and Lt. Col. Alexander S.
Vindman, following their testimony in the impeachment proceedings. Nor did they
speak out against the dismissal of the
intelligence community’s inspector-general, Michael K. Atkinson. Far from
preventing the firing of inspectors-general for doing their jobs, US
institutions were approaching a breaking point by the end of Trump’s term.
It is unlikely that many US institutions would have survived another four
years of Trump, considering that they were not particularly strong to begin
with. Before Trump, polarization in Congress had
already taken a toll on political effectiveness, and the executive branch had
gradually been strengthened vis-à-vis
the legislative and judicial branches of government.
To be sure, the framers of the US Constitution wanted a strong
federal government. Because they did not fully trust the judgment of their
fellow citizens, they institutionalized several non-democratic elements, not least a highly
malapportioned voting system (especially for the Senate) and the Electoral
College. But these features have become particularly problematic for the
current age, because civil society and the ballot box were always going to be
the only real defense against a politician like
Trump.
It would thus be a colossal mistake to take comfort in US institutions’
survival of what Trump wrought on January 6. To leave better institutions to
future generations, we must acknowledge their weaknesses and start rebuilding
them. This will not be easy. No society has ever devised a foolproof way to
overcome deepening political polarization. How does one convince tens of
millions of Trump supporters that they have been manipulated and fed lies for
years?
One starting point is to address the economic hardships that many (though
certainly not all) Trump supporters have experienced. Much more can be done to
increase the incomes of workers who do not have a college degree. In addition
to higher minimum wages, the US needs a new growth strategy to increase the supply
of good jobs for
workers at all skill levels. Of course, even with this, concerns within many
communities about changing social and cultural dynamics would remain.
Beyond individual policy measures, we need to re-evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of institutions. Some institutions would be difficult to reform even
if there were broad agreement on what should be done. Others are easier to fix.
Most important, we need better independent monitoring mechanisms. The next
Trump-like figure should not be able to fire inspectors-general for doing their
jobs, nor should a president’s family be able to profit from his or her office.
A greater degree of professionalism in the civil service is also important,
and can be achieved in part by limiting the scope of political appointments and
dismissals. In the case of expertise-based organizations with a clear mandate
(such as the Environmental Protection Agency or NASA), it does not make sense
for each new administration to install a contingent of cronies at every level
of the hierarchy.
More fundamentally, US federal institutions have a public-trust problem
that will need to be addressed through greater transparency.
Yes, too much transparency in government deliberations and decision-making can
lead politicians and civil servants to pander to voters. Yet
the first priority for the federal government today must be to rebuild public
trust after decades of growing estrangement. Shedding more light on
relationships between corporate lobbies and politicians would be a good place
to start.
Last but certainly not least, Electoral College reform must be on the
agenda. Although a constitutional amendment seems unlikely in the current
political environment, proposals such as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could
open a path to bipartisan reform, making it harder for the next American populist to
ride to power on the support of a disaffected minority of the electorate.
No comments:
Post a Comment