We’re in the early stages of picking the next president, and it isn’t pretty. It would be nice to suppose that a world-changing figure is about to emerge who will renew the country and lead us all on to the City on the Hill, like the Pied Piper.
Probably not. Unfortunately, we may fall for a telegenic face, a slick patter and implausible promises. So here’s the good news, or maybe the bad news. The next president will not be able to fulfill half the promises he or she is making. The impassible wall is not going to keep out all aliens except those needed to clean rooms in Trump properties. The rich won’t be soaked and the poor won’t be lifted up. Taxes won’t be cut and economic growth won’t soar to Chinese levels of 6 percent a year.
We are probably looking forward to continuing partisan gridlock and national decline no matter who wins. Still, citizens must do their duty and vote as if it matters. I therefore suggest that there are only three things we can be sure a president is able to do, and we’d be wise to vote with those in mind. Everything else is gravy.
Commander-in-Chief: Since Congress has abdicated its responsibility to declare war, as required by the Constitution, presidents have a surprisingly free hand when it comes to getting us into quagmires. Even rudimentary skills at demagoguery and xenophobia and the flimsiest casus belli are enough to get the people screaming for blood, and the pusillanimous Congress panting to appropriate money we have to borrow to pay for the adventure. By this means, beginning with Korea we have involved ourselves in one foreign entanglement after another for the last 60 years.
Obama has been criticized by the war hawks for timidity, but we should never forget a playground truism. Getting into fights is easy. Getting out can be impossible. Ask the Hatfields and the McCoys or the Sunnis and the Shiites. Since we can no longer afford unlimited folly, choosing the next wannabe Caesar should be approached with caution.
Several candidates for president are already promising to put boots on the ground, planes in the air and ships in the troubled waters of the Middle East, the Far East, you name it. A cool temperament is probably preferable to a hothead and rational analysis to uninformed zealotry.
The Veto: The Constitution gives the president the power to say “no” to the wild ideas that Congress gets into its head. A timid, supine, obliging or unthinkingly partisan president, one unwilling to say no to anything, is too dangerous to elect. If he won’t check and balance mischief, it can be a long wait until the next election or the Supreme Court can weigh in with second thoughts. The ability to say “no” is probably most important if the president and the majority in Congress are from the same party. Proceed with caution. Is that attractive candidate able to stand up to his friends, not just his enemies?
Supreme Court: Speaking of the third branch. The next president is very likely to get a chance to make appointments whose effects will long outlive his term in office. Justices Scalia and Kennedy will be 80 when the next president takes office, Ginsberg will be 83, Breyer 78. The replacements for any or all of those could well be ruling on cases until 2040.
Long before that, the next justices appointed will be expected to decide the fate of same sex marriage, abortion rights, civil rights, the right to vote, the right to bear arms, principles of taxation, the balance of power between prosecution and defendant in the courts, the power of the government to take private property, immigration, and on and on.
There’s a long history of presidents regretting their Supreme Court appointees – Bush and Souter, Eisenhower and Earl Warren. And when they choose badly, the rest of us have to live with the consequences. To avoid that fate, we need to ignore the happy talk from the candidates and eye them with great suspicion.
Will they have the character to resist the temptation to get us into trouble abroad, the wisdom to tell the national interest from another macho trip down an ill-fated rat hole?
Will they be willing to stand up to popular pressure for some loony measure or some legislative blackmail and veto laws that have no business being passed?
Will they choose Supreme Court justices who have a judicial temperament, who will decide cases on the facts and the merits and not on the basis of ideology?
If the candidate doesn’t pass these three tests, he shouldn’t be entrusted with the presidency. If he does, he probably won’t garner enough votes to win, but that won’t be your fault.