President Trump’s style of governing troubles many, perhaps most, of us citizens. We may have no clear and concise diagnosis of how it threatens the very existence of our democratic republic. Separation of powers among the three branches of government — executive, legislative, and judicial — is our Constitution’s founding framework, but under Trump, executive power has progressively encroached far beyond boundaries that previous presidents honored. In both the present Congress and Supreme Court, we hear, time and again, “the President’s agenda” trotted out as the ultimate guide for governance — the last word! The Constitution, which all officers are sworn to uphold, is perverted or even totally ignored by Trump and his minions. Many in Congress and in academia have been proclaiming that for years now.
Appealing to the separation of powers seems to have had little traction though. Is there another way to frame the dysfunction we face? Back in the ’90s, while serving as the interim pastor, i.e. pastor between pastors, in a number of Chicagoland Lutheran congregations, I wrote a piece intended to point lay leaders to a healthy outcome in the search for their next pastoral leader: “Pick Your P’s: Systems Thinking in Church Organization” is its title. This is the key passage: “Unhealthy group life, in congregations as elsewhere, focuses on person(s), power, and preferences (or worse, prejudices), while healthy group life focuses on principles, priorities, and procedures — that is, on systemic issues.” I propose this as our way to frame the difference, in political contexts worldwide, between autocracy and democracy.
A key implication, a bit later in the piece, takes aim at the current dilemma we face: “No one person should have sole discretion in any decision, unless that authority has been specifically and explicitly granted to that person, in writing.” That should have ruled out the wave — the tsunami! — of Executive Orders that Trump gushed out over the country in his first hours in office. Many of them commandeered powers of Congress; others sought to abolish rights — birthright citizenship is a prime example — enshrined in the Constitution.
In 1789, royal rule was abolished in favor of the rule of law when the Constitution was ratified. Recent election results suggest that enough citizens have gone back to our roots and risen up against creeping autocracy. There just may be a light at the end of the tunnel.
Let’s hope.
Fred Reklau
Oak Park