Lisa L. Miller in Boston Review, with responses from Eric Blanc, Marcus Gadson, Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Samuel Moyn, Aziz Huq, Kelly Hayes & Maya Schenwar, and Lily Geismer.
On the floor of the Senate at the end of January, Chuck Schumer condemned the actions of Donald Trump’s new administration. “This is an explicit assault on our system of checks and balances which have served this republic so well for centuries,” he stated.
In doing so, Schumer tapped into a hallowed American ideal. Probably no narrative about our system of government is more widely shared than this one: that the Framers of the Constitution wisely restrained government power through separation of powers, judicial review, bicameralism, and federalism. Especially in moments of heightened political conflict, many Americans invoke checks and balances as a safeguard against tyranny and essential protection for minorities. Hillary Clinton captured the essence of the prevailing view when she asserted, after Trump’s first win in 2016, that “constitutional checks and balances” are a key part of “an immune system protecting us from the disease of authoritarianism.”
It is thus unsurprising to hear Democrats marshaling these ideas against Trump’s brazen and ongoing attacks on government, immigrants, and political opponents. What these invocations mean as a practical matter is not always clear, however. Some place their hopes in the courts, even as the administration openly flouts many rulings. Others, taken with the promise of “progressive federalism,” urge resistance in blue states. Still others seem eager for a return to “normal,” evoking a golden age of bipartisanship and well-functioning constitutionalism before Trump. These strategies have intuitive appeal because they draw on popular ideas about the virtues of our constitutional system, but they miss something fundamental about our political crisis—and thus about how to resolve it.
More here.
Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.