Trump’s shortcuts toward his desired policies came at an enormous political cost.
In Federalist No. 62, the author, likely James Madison, describes the advantages of dividing legislative power between the House and Senate by stating, “No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.”
As we’ve evolved as a nation, the system has migrated away from this idea in a number of ways. One major change came when the Constitution was amended so that senators were no longer appointed by state legislatures but rather elected. Additionally, as Washington became bigger and more powerful, legislative elections became more nationalized, and lawmakers shifted toward becoming more loyal to their parties than their region.
In recent decades, increased partisanship — an outgrowth of gerrymandering combined with social media and online fundraising — has led to an escalating tit for tat over obstructing the party in power. It is simply taken for granted these days that if a president’s party does not control Congress, he won’t be able to get any of his agenda passed. Hardly anything beyond must-pass legislation will be allowed to go through, and then usually with disruption, which explains the more frequent government shutdowns.
As supporters become frustrated with the inability of the president they voted for to deliver the policy wins that he promised, partisans demand that the president test out new ways to exert executive power to enact the party’s agenda, even if it has no chance of making it through Congress. Those who complain about the approach are cast aside as simply weak and insufficiently worried about the ruthlessness with which the other side yields power.
This was true with Barack Obama’s “pen and phone” second-term strategy, Joe Biden’s massive student-loan-forgiveness plan, and a myriad of executive actions by President Trump. In many cases, these actions have been rejected by courts. But what happened last night demonstrates another consequence of skipping the process of making a case for a policy to the American people and having them join you in pressuring representatives to support that policy.
Trump took a flurry of unilateral actions in his second term because he wanted to appear to move fast and implement policies based on his own whim. The two biggest were his tariffs and the war in Iran. They were both decisions he made without gaining the support of the public or Congress. Plus, each of these policies drove up prices for consumers, even though Trump was elected to make things more affordable than they were under Biden. Both policies proved devastating for Republicans.
By a 50-point margin, the electorate that ushered in massive Democratic majorities said the tariffs hurt their local economies more than they helped, according to a Fox News voter poll, and those who said that the tariffs hurt voted 81 percent for Democrats. Aside from driving up prices, Trump’s tariffs ravaged businesses in states that are highly dependent on trade — including Texas, Michigan, Iowa, Kansas, and Maine.
Nearly three-quarters of voters said that the war in Iran was a “crucial” or “major” factor in their vote, and 64 percent of those voters went for Democrats.
As the trajectory of last night was becoming clear, fights were already breaking out among competing factions of conservatives about whether the war or the tariffs were more responsible for Republican losses. The debate will dominate the next year as Republicans gear up for a primary over the future of the post-Trump GOP.
The cases aren’t perfectly analogous, and there are arguments about the leeway that Congress has given presidents, especially on national security. But in both cases, they involved Trump pursuing unpopular policies without making an attempt to persuade the public or members of Congress. They both followed the same pattern. Trump’s policies were on again and off again; for months, he vacillated between apocalyptic threats and announcements of reconciliation. Because he didn’t consult Congress, the policies were implemented in a way that didn’t take into account the obvious responses of his antagonists (in one case, retaliatory tariffs; in another case, the closing of the Strait of Hormuz).
Ultimately, he took a shortcut to get the policies that he wanted. This approach not only scoffed at how the Founders envisioned major actions being taken, it also came at an enormous political cost.