MAGA, Meet Mencken

As we all know, the Constitution presumes that the power to govern consists of three separate elements: legislative power, executive power, and judicial power. I noted in a very recent column that these powers are overlapping in order to make checks and balances possible.

The structure of the Constitutional text is significant: note that the legislative power is established and outlined first (Article I, containing ten sections), the executive power is second (Article II, containing four sections), and the judicial power is third (Article III, containing three sections).

Here, famously, is each article’s first section:

· “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

· “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

· “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Who represents the American people? Congress and the president represent us in electoral terms, while the Supreme Court represents us in our role as “We the People” in the Constitution. Constitutionally, our democracy is vested in all three branches of the federal government—not one over the others.

It is of fundamental importance to recognize, therefore, that Article II does NOT read, “The governing power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Yet this idea appears to be the thrust of Project 2025’s extensive recommendations.

At the risk of trying your patience, allow me to show you a key passage in Chapter 2 of the Project 2025 manifesto, written by Russ Vought, now the OMB director:

The great challenge confronting a conservative President is the existential need for aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch to return power—including power currently held by the executive branch—to the American people. Success in meeting that challenge will require a rare combination of boldness and self-denial: boldness to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will and self-denial to use the bureaucratic machine to send power away from Washington and back to America’s families, faith communities, local governments, and states.

This emphasis on tight presidential control over the executive branch stems from the controversial Unitary Executive Theory. President Trump, however, seems to go beyond even this. A president signing a bill passed by Congress implicitly legitimates Congress as a co-equal branch of government. From news reports, Trump apparently likes executive orders and the pardon power because each is at the sole discretion of the president. As he once said, preposterously, “I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.”

The only way to explain Republicans’ apparent approval of Trump’s attempt to centralize governing power in the presidency is that they expect there never again to be a Democratic president.

Now, we often hear members of the Administration justify the president’s exertion of these powers by saying: promises made, promises kept. At first glance, it’s a good thing to keep your promises; it’s the major principle of promise-keeping. On the other hand, though, the goodness of promise-keeping depends upon the promise itself. If Smith says to Jones, “I promise to burn down your house if your softball team beats mine,” is it a good thing for Smith to keep that promise?

Consider various recent headlines reporting on reactions to all that promise-keeping:

Huffington Post: “How Trump's MAGA Agenda Is Already Sticking It To Red America. The effects of DOGE and potential cuts to Medicaid are likely to hit communities where Donald Trump is popular.”

Huffington Post: “GOP Sen. Josh Hawley Warns Against 'Massive' Medicaid Cuts: 'I Don't Like The Idea.' The Missouri Republican said large cuts to Medicaid would harm many people who voted for President Donald Trump.”

Iowa Capital Dispatch: “Republicans worry GOP-led states will suffer from Trump’s firings of federal workers.”

The New Republic: “Trump Supporters Have Second Thoughts as He Takes Over Government. The president's early actions are rubbing some of his swing voters the wrong way.”

New York Times: “Republicans Love Trump’s Spending Cuts. Just Not in Their States.”

New York Times: “Trump’s Funding Freezes Bruise a Core Constituency: Farmers.”

Politico: “Trump’s cuts hit red states, triggering GOP pushback.”

Salon: Economists say the GOP budget would destroy Medicaid and "disproportionately benefit the 1%. House Republicans want to pay for their tax cuts by cutting social services used by the working class.”

Washington Post: “Trump’s federal firings imperil government services from cities to farm towns.”

Washington Post: “After ceding power of the purse, GOP lawmakers beg Trump team for funds.”

Yahoo: How Trump's MAGA Agenda Is Already Sticking It To Red America. The effects of DOGE and potential cuts to Medicaid are likely to hit communities where Donald Trump is popular.”

Evidently, what government spends on others is waste, fraud, and abuse; what it spends on me is necessary, appropriate, and fair. Or not.

H.L. Mencken, no small-d democrat (just look at his Wikipedia page), famously said, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Trump voters, be careful what you wish for; you might get it. Welcome to H.L. Mencken.

Check out the Iowa Writers Collaborative at https://iowawriters.substack.com/about.