Forget about the impeachment fantasies. But the Congress does have other tools. It can control the White House by limiting its powers, either by overtly taking back responsibilities it has delegated to the executive branch or by making spending decisions that limit options. We already know there will be no wall built on the border with Mexico unless Congress authorizes funding to pay for it. The President doesn’t always get what he wants. Recall the cliché– the President proposes, but the Congress disposes.
By now it’s apparent that the president is untethered to reality. If he were to be impeached, a compassionate chief justice might declare him incompetent to stand trial because he lacks the mental capacity to be responsible for his words or acts. But the Republicans who sniffed his musk last week aren’t blissed by the clueless stupor his narcissism affords him. They’re fearful of their constituents.
Ever since the election, the alarmists have been hinting darkly that the inauguration of Donald Trump will be like the second coming of Adolf Hitler.
In fact, far from being a Hitler, President Trump is more likely to find himself to be a Gulliver—a giant tied down hand and foot by Lilliputians. Continue reading President Trump: Hitler—or Gulliver?
I was afraid the October surprise was going to be an act of terrorism on U.S. soil. I thought that ISIS, like Putin, calculated that hothead Trump would better serve its interests than cucumber Clinton. I imagined that her response to an attack would be more like George W. Bush’s bullhorn words (“I can hear you! … And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”), and Trump’s more like Gen. Curtis LeMay’s (“[W]e’re going to bomb them back to the Stone Age”). At a moment like that, fury can trump steely; rage, I feared, would carry him to the White House.
I remain a part of the dissenting minority who argue that our system isn’t broken. Action on a number of thorny issues — ranging from immigration to education reform — is stymied because of big disagreements on what should be done. Our experience with the Affordable Care Act illustrates the peril of making big changes in the absence of substantial majority support.