Just leaders serve the state, not themselves
When Donald Trump was elected to the US presidency because of his ability to deliver a crucial number of votes in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, we knew he would be an unconventional leader. His colourful past and promises for the future show he cares little for long-established protocols and unwritten decencies expected from the White House.
A small part of me at times finds Trump’s tendency to disrupt staid conventions refreshing, or at least fun to watch from afar. His unpresidential ways and daily challenges to the status quo of Washington, DC, are mere entertainment compared to his recent affronts to the way his country works.
The delicate balance of the colossal US government is based on three constantly teetering branches of power. Like members of a family or other ecosystems, when one branch gets out of line, it’s up to the others to bring it into line. Trump’s impeachment inquiry is an apt example: the legislative branch is using its constitutional powers to challenge decisions by Trump’s executive branch, while the country’s judicial arm is being brought in to decide on the executive branch’s interpretation of those powers.
But as David Frum of The Atlantic explains, this system ‘‘is also perforated by vulnerabilities . . . supreme among those vulnerabilities is reliance on the personal qualities of the man or woman who wields the awesome powers of the presidency’’.
Frum points out that a British prime minister must hold on to power by maintaining the confidence of the majority of Parliament, and this can be lost in minutes. ‘‘The president of the United States, on the other hand, is restrained first and foremost by his own ethics and public spirit. What happens if somebody comes to the high office lacking those qualities?’’
Indeed. Humans have been talking about the idea of a just leader for as long as our species began gathering in groups. From Socrates’ point of view, a just person is one who can recognise their obligation to the state by obeying its laws. As the most fundamental entity in a moral sense, the state deserves our utmost respect. People who are just, the philosopher argues, know this and act accordingly.
An astute line of thinkers throughout history built upon Socrates’ ideas of leadership until at last, in 1215, the rule of the law was established. The US Constitution and other founding documents of nations are born out of the premise that agreed-upon rules, not individuals, prevail, and no-one can escape subservience to them.
Trump is not convinced. Stonewalling all Congressional subpoenas, defying federal court orders, and removing Congress’ lawful access to White House staff involved in alleged breaches of federal and international laws limits the system’s ability to operate as it was intended.
Steve Denning of Forbes Magazine says these acts defy ‘‘the American system of checks and balances among the three co-equal branches of government. They constitute an unprecedented coordinated assault on the rule of law’’.
In my occasional attempts at mature empathy for my Republican compatriots, I remember how I felt about President Clinton’s impeachment trial when Republicans used the same Congressional tools as today’s Democrats to uncover Clinton’s alleged acts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and contempt of court.
I didn’t really care that Clinton had had an affair with Monica Lewinsky; I liked his policies and supported his political perspectives. But it did bother me that the president I helped to elect might be subverting the law by slanting information in such a way that the lines of truth were, perhaps, crossed. Trump’s circuses of hiring bona fide crooks to cover up dozens of his sexual and financial transgressions, perpetual efforts to flout nepotism laws, and encouraging at least one clandestine intervention into US elections by a foreign intelligence service make Clinton’s sins seem juvenile.
Such rule-twisting manipulation of centuriesold norms challenges the fundamental notion that democratically developed laws should, as Socrates set out, be deeply respected.
Some of the most powerful people are using their power to chip away at the foundations of a political system designed to elevate the needs of the state over those of a few individuals.
And that’s something all of us, not just voters in Michigan and Wisconsin, should be worried about. Some are asking ‘‘Can the damage to America’s political foundations ever fully recover?’’
Last week, a federal judge rebuked the White House in its claim that Don McGahn, former White House counsel, should not have to testify in the impeachment inquiry. In just four words, the judge reminded the White House that no-one in the president’s orbit or even the president himself is above the law.
She stated: ‘‘Presidents are not kings.’’
As the most fundamental entity in a moral sense, the state deserves our utmost respect.