U.S. must end Trump’s destructive presidency

Core elements of U.S. political success being ruined, writes

It is not to America’s benefit that Donald Trump continues to be president.

He refuses to govern by the basic constitutional requirements of respect for political opponents, noninterference with other branches of government and promoting equal treatment for all. Instead, he displays hatred for racial minorities, lies about his political record and personal history and is complicit in the erosion of national security and the rule of law. Mr. Trump damages the core elements of America’s political success.

Seeking the removal of a political leader is not a novel situation in democratic nations. When political leaders become damaging, political allies and foes usually strive to bring an end to that harmful leadership. This is as true in parliamentary democracies, such as Canada, as it is in nations that directly elect their leaders.

In parliamentary democracies, more often than people realize, heads of government are forced from office. Mostly these removals from office are subtle and disguised — but not always. The ouster in 1990 of British prime minister Margaret Thatcher by her party due to rapid decline in her popularity and the 1963 cabinet revolt against Canadian prime minister John Diefenbaker are two instances of a visible removal of government leaders.

This process, though usually kept hidden, is in play in many instances of government leaders in parliamentary democracies leaving office through the pressure created by political support being withdrawn.

The parliamentary rule requiring that governments have the support of a majority of parliamentary members is what makes possible this process of ending the tenure of a government leader when the support of their party members falls away.

United States presidents are elected for a fixed fouryear term, and holding office is not dependent on maintaining the support of the legislative branch. If congressional leaders and members turn against a president this does not limit his or her tenure.

However, the U.S. Constitution does provide two routes for removal. The 25th Amendment gives the cabinet power to declare a president to be unfit to perform presidential duties. This power is not available in the current context; although Mr. Trump’s psychological state seems pathological, he is not incapacitated.

The second constitutional power of removal is congressional impeachment. This is exercised in two stages. The House of Representatives must pass articles of impeachment, which then triggers a trial in the Senate to determine if the president should be removed. A Senate decision to remove the president requires the approval of two-thirds of the members.

The constitutional ground for impeachment is that the president has committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours.” In Mr. Trump’s case the path to this finding is very close at hand, based on what now seems highly likely to be an attempt to obstruct justice and may come to include being a party to acts of collusion with a foreign power to pervert an election.

Opposition to impeachment has always been based on political calculations. Currently, the political calculations of Republican office-holders are, first, the electoral cost to re-election of triggering the anger of the significant minority of Americans who see Mr. Trump as America’s salvation and, second, the withdrawal of campaign funding by the wealthy advocates of his presidency.

The political calculation of Republicans has, so far, been less about preserving the strength and integrity of the United States than about whether keeping Mr. Trump in power will ensure continuation of election funding, their electoral success and, less significantly, the prospect of implementing the Trump agenda.

It seems that the American promise of preserving democratic ideals through legalistic constitutional rules is proving to be less effective in sustaining political integrity than Canada’s practice of holding the heads of government to general and undefined notions of appropriate political behaviour.