James Fallows: The Greatest Disappointment of the Trump Presidency [View all]

[babylonsister]

The Greatest Disappointment of the Trump Presidency
The institutional fabric of the United States has proven more tenacious and resilient in responding than many feared. The Republican Congress has not.
James Fallows
3:32 PM ET

snip//


Is there a surprise, a disappointment, and a settled tragedy so far? There is. It is the same one I described last year, in the first summer of the Trump age:

The major weakness these six months have revealed in our governing system is almost too obvious to mention, but I’ll name it anyway. It is the refusal, so far, by any significant Republican figure in Congress to apply to Donald Trump the standards its members know the country depends on for long-term survival of its government. A system of checks and balances relies on each of its component branches resisting overreach by the others. The judiciary has done its part; Paul Ryan’s House and Mitch McConnell’s Senate have not. We’re seeing the difference that can make.

At that time, McConnell’s Republicans held 52 seats in the Senate. To constitute a 51-vote Senate majority, which in turn could have begun to put some limit on Trump (by authorizing hearings or issuing subpoenas), three of them would have had to switch their votes.

That’s a relatively tall order, especially early in any president’s term. But with Doug Jones’s victory in the Senate race in Alabama, the Republican count has shrunk to 51. And with John McCain’s terminal illness, only 50 Republican senators are available to vote under normal circumstances, and the Democrats and independents together number 49.

This means that just one Republican senator joining the Democrats and independents would give them 50 votes, against only 49 Republicans, on days when McCain would not vote. And in any circumstances, a total of two Republican senators have it in their power to create a Senate majority and impose limits on an executive they know to be out of control.

Who might those two senators be? A list I offered early this year still applies:

Two like Jeff Flake and Bob Corker who are not running for re-election and have no primary-challenge consequences to fear;
Two like Orrin Hatch and John McCain who mainly have their places in history to think about;
Two like the young Ben Sasse and the veteran Lamar Alexander who pride themselves on being “thoughtful”;
Two like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski who pride themselves on being “independent”;
Two like Rand Paul and Mike Lee who pride themselves on their own kind of independence;
Two like Rob Portman and John Barrasso who pride themselves on being decent;
Two like Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton with conceivable long-term higher-office hopes;
Two like Tim Scott and James Lankford who jointly wrote a statement on the need for broad-minded inclusion;
Two like Chuck Grassley and Richard Shelby, who like Hatch and McCain are in their 80s and conceivably have “legacy” on their minds (remember that in the Alabama Senate race Shelby took a stand against his party’s odious nominee, Roy Moore);
One like Dean Heller, facing a tough re-election race, plus maybe Lindsey Graham, who used to be among the leaders in blunt talk about Trump’s excesses.

That’s 20 senators total. The current GOP majority includes 31 more, most of whom are even stauncher party-line voters than those listed above and thus would give rise to sarcastic “Oh, sure!” eye-roll reactions at the mere idea of their breaking ranks.

But remember: Every one of them swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, not simply their own careerist comfort. And not a one of them, yet, has been willing to risk comfort, career, or fund-raising to defend the constitutional check-and-balance prerogatives of their legislative branch

They now confront a president who has been named in a felony guilty plea as having directed criminal activities. (It didn’t get this far or this crystal-clear with Richard Nixon.) Who is routinely discussed as a potential security risk by his own military and intelligence-agency officials. Who ridicules their former Senate colleague for not bending fully to his will as attorney general. Who is manifestly unable to contain his impulses and resentments, while holding a job whose most important qualification is temperamental control. Who …

… The list of “who”s could go on, and any one of those 51 senators could complete it. But not a one of them will take a stand against this man, with a vote. Some give speeches. Some write op-eds. Many are “concerned.” Talk is something, but talk is not a vote.

more...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/looking-backward/568546/