Trump is the result of a constitutional Crisis
If Trump’s re-election can be explained as a consequence of popular democracy, it may also be the result of a constitutional failure, which is more specific to the United States. The often-made observation that the Constitution of 1789 began the ‘American experiment’ probably began with doubts of James Madison and the remark by Benjamin Franklin that they had made ‘A republic if you can keep it.’ Franklin and Madison were well aware that their compromises would be tested and the Constitution would need to face and survive serious crises as it has evolved and adapted over time. While Trump’s presidency presents another test of the Constitution’s durability, his election and re-election result from an ongoing crisis that he did not initiate.
While the designers of the constitution were pessimistic about the sagacity of the people they nonetheless created a system which depended on two fragile necessities, first was compromise, and second that politicians should put the interests of the nation before the interests of party or faction. These necessities have become more apparent as the Constitution's development has continued to progress toward more inclusive democracy. However, almost immediately after the ratification of the constitution the hope of non-partisan politics failed to materialise, but the necessity for compromise survived, just. One reason for the continued presence of compromise in American politics was the nature of American parties. Unlike European parties, they were loose coalitions that only took on a national identity every four years. This structural flexibility and ideological plurality within parties allowed some degree of pragmatism and compromise to continue.
Notwithstanding the failure of compromise which led to the civil war, it is generally true that bipartisanship and willingness to compromise remained a feature of American politics. What has this history lesson got to do with Trump? The answer might be that as compromise has declined as a feature of American politics and parties have become more polarised and Congress more dysfunctional there has been a consequential loss of faith in the old order and desire for change which neither party could satisfy. According to this hypothesis, it was this constitutional failure that produced Trump.
Kirby Goidel, a professor in the Department of Political Science at The Bush School of Government and Public Service believes Trump’s victory means there should be a re-evaluation of the constitution. “Going forward, we are going to have to seriously rethink the Madisonian design. Other political systems, based on proportional representation and with parliamentary systems, appear to be functioning more effectively[6]. Our system encourages politicians to take visible stands while playing to their base constituencies, but doesn’t reward them for actually solving problems.’’ This frustration at ‘do-nothing’ congresses, repeated government shutdowns and the atmosphere of partisan viciousness extends beyond the ‘broken branch’ of Congress to the wider political establishment. The influence of money, corruption scandals, influence of corporations, and gerrymandered elections gives credence to Trump’s call to ‘drain the swamp’ and makes a young man, Luigi Mangione, a hero for murdering a corporate healthcare executive.
Is Congress the broken Branch?
Polarisation is dividing America State by State