Stretching Presidential Powers
Terry H. Schwadron
Sept. 13, 2024
Amid all the post-debate fuss over who “won,” it remains striking just how much of what was being peddled on that televised stage is beyond the power of either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, should either prevail.
The debate — it is now looking as if it will be the only one — did a lot to show character, to reflect who came across as “presidential,” and to show that Harris generally sticks to data before speaking while Trump free-styles, willfully rewriting history and facts. The debate showed that Trump is easily bruised and manipulable, and that Harris was poised, planful, and professional.
Still, some “undecided” voters were insisting on yet more policies and issues — which they don’t seem to hear. News about the behavioral aspects of the debate and “winning” far outpaced any details that a new government report was out this week finding that inflation — supposedly the key issue in the election — has dropped to 2%, its lowest point in years, likely triggering cuts in lending rates.
We’re so dedicated to the idea that the presidency is all-powerful that we allow candidates — if not demand the candidates — to make sweeping commitments to positions and issues large and small that they may never be able to control. It’s a political habit that leads not only to fact-stretching, but to claims that they alone might never be in a position to fulfill.
By contrast, preserving the sanctity of the final vote certification and the peaceful transfer of power is exactly within the grasp of these candidates.
Powers to Fix Everything?
The examples of assumed presidential power were many:
While as president, Trump could set the tariffs he wants, he can’t make other countries pay billions to the U.S. treasury, as he asserted again at the debate. Rather, those higher costs to sell foreign-made goods from clothing to electronics and cars are passed along to the eventual consumer. In any case, setting tariffs on wine and cheese will do absolutely nothing about the prices charged by domestic producers for eggs, milk or fuel. It made you wonder whether Trump doesn’t know how tariffs work or that he thinks we are idiots.
For Harris to assert that more housing is a value worthy to pursue won’t make it so, and our divided Congress would have to pony up money for tax credits for first-time buyers.
You would hardly know from the debate that there is such an independent agency as the Federal Reserve that controls money supply and borrowing rates that have the most direct effect on consumer prices.
The assertions about closing the border or arranging for an ordered deportation of millions of immigrants who have been in this country anywhere from days to decades, is hardly the stuff of a single presidential whim or executive order. Congress, courts and the cooperation of a myriad of agencies and law enforcement outlets are required. Among other things, closing the border means shutting down commercial traffic that affects billions of dollars of trade each day. Hearing Trump repeat this alternative constantly diminishes respect for the complexities involved.
For Trump to jump on Harris because with her “fracking in Pennsylvania will end on day one,”, for example, is nonsense (and doubtful as a singular reason to vote for a candidate). More than 90 percent of fracking is on privately owned land, and a president might have a say over fracking on federal property. In Pennsylvania, that means the Allegheny National Forest, which has 850 acres in leases.
For Harris to suggest that Trump had totally mismanaged the Covid crisis was largely right but skipped over providing billions of dollars to pharmaceutical companies to come up with a vaccine in record time. But it was vaccines from scientists and not Trump’s inane, off-the-cuff remarks about injecting bleach that addressed disease.
Slippery Facts
It was almost as if listening to the debate required not only fact-check, but a civics guide about the powers of the presidency.
Much of what either promised — Trump’s assertions about ensuring payments for IVF treatments or huge, permanent tax cuts that have favored the wealthy and corporations, or the various Harris economic proposals, require approval of Congress.
Trump’s assertions about Europe lagging in financial support for Ukrainian defense against a Russian invasion were flat wrong. Together, Europe’s commitments in weapons and money outstrip U.S. allocations, though the United States remains the largest single country. But solving a war, as Trump vowed to do in the first days after being elected (conducting foreign negotiations for the country is illegal unless he is the sworn president), is not an act of a U.S. president; you need the participants to agree.
Indeed, among the most disturbing aspects of the debate was criticism for the few moderator “fact-checks” that were required for Trump’s most outrageous spins of history. The reporters were correct to do as they did, and the reaction from Trump and GOP supporters to line up to threaten ABC-TV with regulatory review of its license speak volumes about the degree to which democratic values are at stake in the election. What should have been more alarming is that fact-checking on this scale was required at all.
The GOP criticism reflects a belief that “journalism” is perceived as “publicity” rather than a process to hold officials to account with verifiable fact. That, too, is not changed by presidential fiat.
##