Donald Trump: An imperial president?

The term “the imperial presidency” gained popularity in the USA in the early 1970s as a consequence of a book of that title by the historian Arthur Schlesinger.

Schlesinger charted what he saw as the abuse of power by successive presidents, most especially by Johnson (1963–69) and Nixon (1969–74). The presidency, claimed Schlesinger, had come to resemble more an imperial court than the office envisaged by the Founding Fathers back in the 1780s.

As we approach the end of Trump’s first year back in office, there are, I think, three concerns about the state of American democracy and the power of the presidency. First, there is the ineffectiveness and/or unwillingness of Congress (their equivalent of our Parliament) to use their constitutional powers to operate as a check on the President. With the Republicans in control of both houses, Congress has pretty much given President Trump everything he’s asked for. With the possible exception of their demanding the release of the Epstein files, congressional Republicans have raised barely a murmur as Trump has taken control of foreign, trade and economic policy into the Oval Office.

Second, there has been very little push-back from the federal courts. The Supreme Court – with three Trump appointees amongst its membership of nine – has allowed the President a pass on some questionable actions allowing him to: fire members of independent agencies; deport immigrants to third countries; cut $4 billion from a foreign aid budget voted for by Congress; end the right to birthright citizenship; make widespread lay-offs in the federal government; use the National Guard to end what the President claims is a “crime emergency” in many of America’s largest cities. In the first eight months of this term, Trump made 28 emergency appeals to the Supreme Court – and they handed him victory in 21 of them. Thus, the constitutional checks and balances have seemed ineffective.

Third, Trump has used this ineffectiveness of the legislative and judicial branches to accrue more power to the executive branch – and specifically to himself, and his small coterie of senior cabinet officers, policy advisers, friends and family members. He has cheered on the use of the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute political opponents, increased significantly his use of Executive Orders (which do not require congressional approval) and insisted upon absolute loyalty from those in his party and administration. Just these past weeks, some have seen his demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make way for the Trump-inspired ballroom to be an apt picture of the Trump presidency itself.

So, should Americans, should we, be concerned? The answer, I believe, cuts both ways. It’s possible to see in Donald Trump a number of traits we’ve seen before in previous presidents. It was President Johnson who famously said: “I don’t want loyalty, I want LOYALT Y!” – the last word being bellowed at full volume. It was President Nixon who had his “Enemies List” and used his small coterie of senior cabinet officers, policy advisers and friends to interfere with the 1972 presidential election.

But there are causes for concern. Politics is far more partisan today than it was in Nixon’s day – when even Republican politicians went to the White House to tell a Republican president that they would support his impeachment and removal if he didn’t resign. I don’t see that happening today. In July 1974 a unanimous Supreme Court (including Nixon’s own appointees) ordered Nixon to release the White House tapes – an action which led directly to Nixon’s resignation. I don’t see that happening today either. The Democrats are also much weaker and more divided than they were when they faced the criminal behaviour of President Nixon. And some branches of the Christian church today act as Trump cheerleaders – something of an unedifying spectacle which is also unhelpful to the work of the gospel.

When looking at human government as Christians, we need to keep a Christian perspective. What does that mean? First, it means remembering that all human leaders – however grand they may fleetingly appear – are flawed, sinful people who will be unable to live up to the grand hopes and expectations of their supporters. If in doubt, look at even the best of the Old Testament kings – David, Solomon or Hezekiah. Second, it means remembering that human society is marred by the effects of sin. Trying to make anything ‘great’ again without the gospel is therefore – from an eternal perspective – something of a lost cause. Third, we should show a godly graciousness to all – not seeking to label or denigrate others in a way that seems to deny the fact that each one is someone whom Christ came to save. Paul writes to Timothy: “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1. Tim. 2v1-2).