Trump’s Threat to Jail Clinton Also Targets Democracy’s Institutions
Summary: In their article "Trump’s Threat to Jail Clinton Also Targets Democracy Institutions," authors Max Fisher and Amanda Taub discuss how the claims Donald Trump has made during his election threaten to undermine the core values of American democracy. The authors focus on Trump’s assertions that he would throw Hillary in jail if elected President. Fisher and Taub claim that Trump's words are a threat to the fundamental pillars of the US government, because he suggests that "he alone could determine her fate," as opposed to institutions such as the police or court system. Trump's arguments that the election system is rigged also questions the democratic process that our government relies on. The authors interviewed political scientist Adrienne LeBas, who found parallels between Trump's rise to power and the methods used by authoritarian leaders in “Zimbabwe, Togo, Ethiopia" who also made "explicit threats to imprison opponents.” Overall, Trump could not completely tear down the American democracy, but he certainly could erode it. In the words of LeBas, "“Our institutions and our democratic orientations and attitudes are far weaker than we think they are.”
Connection: Trump's comments make the reader question what he really could accomplish as President. Executive powers are extremely important, especially with candidates that make such bold claims.
Questions:
1. If elected, could Trump actually follow through with his campaign claims (jailing Hillary, building a wall, etc)?
2. What are the limitations on executive powers?
3. Considering the current state of US politics (gridlock), should the President be given more or less power? Why?
I believe that the current state emphasizes how important it is that we have a balanced system of government. Under the current political climate giving the president more power could be extreme dangerous. Party polarization has become to norm in politics, so giving the president increased power could allow the executive branch to crush the opposing political party turning the United States into a world that the professors in the article expressed. Giving the president more power would, in sense, ease the policy process but only by making the policy process a one man show. On the contrary we could not reduce the president's power as then nothing could get done unless both chambers of Congress had a super (2/3) majority. When the presidency was weak (following Andrew Jackson up until Lincoln then following Andrew Johnson until around either McKinley or Teddy Roosevelt) the country was either controlled by Congress or in the case of the latter time period, business (in particular the robber barons of the industrial age). This would be no better than a dictatorship rule under the president as special interests would control the government, leaving no room for the citizens of the US. In conclusion the powers of the President should not change because it is essential to making sure that a "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."
ReplyDeleteIf Trump does become president, it would be quite difficult for him to following through with his political agenda. In the case of jailing Hillary, it is seemingly impossible for him to achieve. He would have to suggest the Department of Justice to launch an investigation and seemingly avoid the threat of impeachment for doing so. Furthermore, he will not be fully able to have Mexico fund the building of a wall. The president of Mexico clearly stated Mexico would not pay for such a wall. Also this wall would prove to hurt the economy of the United States. Overall, the plans Trump has seem impossible to accomplish.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Trump's political agenda would be difficult to execute. To follow his plans and export all illegal immigrants will a statistical nightmare. The resources it would require would take away from other important issues. Despite the increase in the president's power, Trump does not realize how hard it is to get a law passed. If the Republicans loose the majority in the Senate, Trump will even have trouble passing less controversial bills. Despite his big talk, Trump's policies are too polarizing to succeed in a bipartisan government.
DeleteTrump would not be able to complete all of his goals. Even though his supporters want him to follow through with his threats to imprison Clinton, that would not be easy to do, but as the article argues, his threats also threaten democracy. The problem is, many of Trump's supporters are already frustrated with the current system, which is why they support his platform of completely changing it. There is more to the problem than imprisoning Clinton. If Trump's supporters, especially the uneducated ones, encourage him to follow through with this particular plan along with other ones, they come close to encourage him to take a step towards becoming something similar to a dictator.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the current state of U.S. politics I think it is important for the president to receive more power. This would be beneficial because of the current views many people have regarding our democratic system. Many people have become frustrated with how little the government has been able to get done. By giving the president more power more things will be able to get done in the capital.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the people of America have chosen their president in order to change the current course of their country. Moreover, I feel that the people want to have a stronger leader or president to make these changes happen. However, I do not think that the president currently has all the power necessary to enact all of his wishes. I think that passing a bill for a wall or jailing Hillary Clinton would be almost impossible as Congress stands in the way.
DeleteI see both Alex and Justin's perspective, yet I don't think it is beneficial to either increase or decrease the president's power. By increasing the president's power, it could make it easier for certain bills to be passed, however this could easily be abused depending on the person. At the same time limiting the president's power almost seems as if the person the American people voted for has no influence on this country what so ever. The three branches act as a checks and balance for one another and increasing or decreasing any of the branches will defeat the whole purpose of it.
DeleteIn regards to question number 3, I believe that presidents should receive less power. While we have a great system of checks and balances between our three branches of government, I think the executive branch still holds too much power over the other branches. We live in a democratic society. When one official has too much power, we begin to stray away from this democracy. In order to protect the voice of the people, we should limit the President's role and give a greater voice to citizens.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mollie. I believe that giving the president more power would throw off the separation of powers and be dangerous to politics in the future. One person should not receive so much power, as their ideals and beliefs do not reflect much of the public's opinions. I think their should be more power given to the public as it will benefit our society and give people more trust in our government.
DeleteThroughout Trump's campaign, he has said many horrifying things that have shocked many people. Trump's promise to jail Clinton was another one of his controversial statements that triggered many negative reactions. However, I do not think this statement is as serious and offensive as his other ones. As we have witnessed Trump's transition and actions so far into the office, I think it has become increasingly clear that Trump is all talk. He said he would do many things in his campaign (such as get rid of Obamacare) but has already started to go back on his promises. Shortly after being elected, Trump stated he would not pursue legal action against Clinton. Thus, while Trump's statements are certainly dangerous and offensive, they will most likely not actually be put into action.
ReplyDelete