What Trump's missing about Russian threat
The Framers of the Constitution, eyeing an executive branch configuration that might unify the regions of the nation, briefly considered but ultimately rejected, a proposal to establish a plural presidency, an arrangement that would have consisted of a three-headed presidency, one representing each region of the nation: New England, the mid-Atlantic and the South. Opponents of the measure, concerned about efficiency and accountability, prevailed in their warnings about the impact of multiple executive voices in the implementation and articulation of the nation’s policies: unpredictability, confusion, division, disorder and chaos.
The Framers’ decision is reflected in the first sentence of Article II of the Constitution: “The executive power shall be vested in a President.” The meaning of the sentence could hardly be stated more clearly: The United States shall have one president at a time. President-Elect Donald Trump has not grasped the emphatic import of the Framers’ decision. Perhaps he has not been briefed on the matter; perhaps he does not care.
Trump’s theory of a plural presidency has been manifested in his 140-character tweets and brief utterances from the doorstep of Trump Tower that have undermined long-standing policies and principles of American foreign policy, as well as President Barack Obama’s official, that is to say, presidential pronouncements on matters of foreign relations.
Trump’s boundary issues — meddling in the conduct of American foreign policy before he has assumed office — combined with his cavalier indeed, indifferent, attitude toward Russia’s hacking of American institutions for the express purpose, our intelligence agencies and the FBI have concluded, of aiding Trump’s presidential campaign, leave many Americans to wonder what institutions and fundamental principles he might respect.
To date, he has exhibited little concern about either the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution — the provision that bars the president from receiving any gifts or funds from foreign governments — or the pervasive ethical concerns that arise from the vast conflict of interests resulting from his refusal to either sell his business enterprises or appoint a trustee (other than a family member) to manage them.
Trump’s nonchalance about Vladimir Putin’s personally directed assaults on America’s territorial integrity, its sovereignty and its core governance principle of free and fair democratic elections, leaves many to doubt his campaign rhetoric about strengthening our national defense and security. His statement in response to bipartisan commitments in Congress to conduct investigations to get to the bottom of Putin’s attack on the United States, and President Obama’s announcement that he would order a proportional response against Russia, that “we should get on with our lives,” is hardly suggestive of a chief executive committed to our national defense or fundamental republican values.
To some degree, Trump’s dismissal of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s stout defense of congressional investigations is reflective of his narrow, egocentric view of the world. Trump said he didn’t know why Graham, R-S.C., was pushing for an investigation but noted, “You know he ran against me.” There remains the need for the President-Elect to move beyond a vision of the world that is wrapped in the politics of a primary campaign to one that comprehends U.S. constitutional principles, the propriety and necessity of congressional investigations and, among other things, a recognition that Putin is an authoritarian strongman who murders his own people, including journalists and dissidents, illegally invades and annexes foreign nations, and is a dangerous threat to American principles and interests.
As the new year dawns, American citizens harbor hopes that Trump will succeed in enhancing economic prosperity, promoting policies that strengthen our national defense and protecting our constitutional rights and liberties. It would be unseemly to wish otherwise. But the proof is in the pudding.
•••
Dr. David Adler is President of The Alturas Institute, and co-author of the recently released, “The War Power in an Age of Terrorism: Debating Presidential Power.”