In Washington, D.C., straight across Jackson Square from the White House, is the national headquarters of the US Chambers of Commerce. Across the facade hangs a huge banner that reads “Jobs and Growth.” It could be the slogan for every candidate running for president this year.
The inability of our system to deliver good jobs is at the root of the malaise that has made this campaign so disheartening, so terrifying. Stubborn unemployment, under-employment and wage stagnation have caused great anxiety about immigration and trade policy. A recent video gone viral shows a manufacturing executive telling workers on a shop floor that scores of them will be fired because he has decided to move operations to Mexico.
No wonder people scream bloody murder and give their support to a candidate who promises to build high walls around the country and deport millions of illegal immigrants.
Did party leaders think that people would suffer patiently through their predicament? There were only two ways to react to such a political opportunity. Either you could promise to tear the whole building down and let “me” fix it. Or you could …. No, I guess there was only one way: let me fix it. Campaign 2016 has seemed to offer two ways because one messiah has chosen to market his wares to the right end of the political spectrum, the other to the left.
I do not mean to equate Trump and Sanders. Not at all. I put them in the same sentence to note that both are channeling the same deep frustrations. Were it not for Sen. Sanders’ campaign, where might the legions of disaffected white male Democrats have gone?
The fundamental problem is that our political and constitutional systems make promises they cannot keep. In the short term, there is a remedy for our shortage of well-paid jobs. There is plenty of work to do, rebuilding our rotten infrastructure: roads, bridges, highways and harbors. To take one example, last week USA Today published the results of a major investigation. The headline: “Beyond Flint: High Lead Levels Found in 2,000 Water Systems Across USA.” Committing federal funds could fix this.
Yet Congress repeatedly foils any real effort to tackle the problem. Republicans would rather fuss about the national debt and excessive regulations. Democrats insist that a federal jobs program must protect the unions. Why can’t the president break this gridlock?
Many pundits offer answers. Let me add my two-cents worth.
It began innocently enough, early in the 20th century, when Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – bold men, not timid about innovating – developed a new kind of presidency. Roosevelt did it by playing the part; Professor Wilson by oratory.
In 1908, as he was preparing his own run, Wilson described the office he sought this way: “If [the president] rightly interpret the national thought and boldly insist upon it, he is irresistible; and the country never feels the zest of action so much as when its President is of such insight and caliber. Its instinct is for unified action, and it craves a single leader.” Wilson’s words laid the foundation for the modern imperial presidency.
As the 20th century unfolded, men skillful in the techniques of modern communications made a new kind of appeal to the American electorate. Each of them had his own flair. FDR’s distinctive voice was made for radio. JFK’s wit and youthful charm shone to good advantage on television. Reagan was a born actor and story-teller. Obama and his people mastered Facebook and Twitter before the rest of us realized its potential for politicians.
Meanwhile, however, amidst these changes in campaigning, the basic structure of our constitutional system endured. James Madison, the principal framer of the Constitution, warned that the greatest danger to republics was their vulnerability to factions. Factionalism was often rooted in “an attachment to … leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power.” It was essential that the constitutional structure be able to foil such men. The complexity of separated powers and the federal system were designed for this purpose.
The problem for us now is that these two realities – the urgent demands of our people and the conservative tendency of our constitutional system – have together caused tremendous tension in the American political universe, inviting a tectonic explosion. While modern technologies encourage candidates and presidents to deal with political challenges by promising ever-more-wonderful programs and policies, the constitutional system, created by the framers to foil political passion and frustrate demagoguery, stands guard against radical changes.
There are signs lately that establishment figures in both parties are beginning to realize the magnitude and depth of the challenge they face under these circumstances. They are finally beginning to mobilize.
It may be too late to save the Republican party. The spectacular blunders that Sen. Mitch McConnell has made in refusing even the courtesy of a meeting with the president’s nominee for the Supreme Court, much less hearings and a vote, may well cost him the majority in the Senate that he has used to devastating effect to foil the Democrats’ programs.
Don Robinson, a retired professor of government at Smith College, writes a regular column for the Gazette which appears on the fourth Thursday of the month. He can be emailed at drobinso@smith.edu.