Donald Trump as anti-conservative (and anti-constitutionalist) authoritarian

Sandy Levinson

There is so much that one could say about last night's fear-filled diatribe.  No FDR there!  If we're not already fearful, we ought to be!  Fortunately, though, there's a would-be authoritarian leader who is volunteering to relieve our fears by doing whatever is necessary (though I was a little surprised that he didn't mention his desire to waterboard at will, given that the central theme of his candidacy is the "triumph of the will"). 

But I want to note only that Donald Trump, who may well have never really discussed the Constitution with anyone competent to do so, has, shall we say, an exaggerated view of presidential power.  Even if one stipulates that we are facing a resurgent crime wave and need much more "law and order," it's not remotely clear that the crimes in question are federal crimes, unless, of course, one believes that everything should be federalized, which I don't recall being a tenet of the old-Republican Party.  (See, e.g., Lopez.)  Indeed, to what I think is their shame, the Kennedy Administration for too long refused to get involved in Alabama or Mississippi on the ground that we are, after all, a federal system and, as Burke Marshall argued, was without jurisdiction to intervene.  I take it that subsequently-passed civil rights laws have changed the situation, at least somewhat, but I also assume that there continue to be some kinds of limits to national power--or so we are constantly told by our conservative friends.  To put it mildly, though, there's no reason to believe that Caudillo Trump would let the metaphysics (or reality) of federalism get in the way of his desire to be an all-powerful savoir of the country. 

I suppose that he does have the unilateral authority to renounce any and all executive agreements and treaties.  Again, though, I wasn't aware that this was a view of presidential power that conservatives are committed to. 

Perhaps he could order the immigration service (or whatever it's called these days) not to let in anyone from a country in which terrorism has occurred (which, of course, includes the UK, France, Spain, and now Germany).  No serious person (which might exclude a sociopath like Trump) believes that the particular threat comes from people who want to come here as immigrants.  I assume that a Trumpeteer should advocate shutting down all tourism unless and until everyone (save, perhaps, for white Christians) proves his or her eligibility for a visa (that would be include an ankle bracelet that would always let the Department of Homeland Security know where the visa holder is at all times).

I don't know how the Trump Hotels would do if the US start interrogating all visitors to the US for hours on end in order to guard against the possibility that one of them might be up to no good.  At the very least, I would assume that no sane international organization, including the International Olympic Committee,would schedule any events int eh US.  I'd also be curious if other countries would have greater "respect" for such a Trumpian policy or, instead, would impose similar inconvenience on all Americans who might want to visit a foreign countries.  Several years ago, I had to pay about $160 for a visa to visit Argentina solely because that was the amount the US imposed on Argentines.  Anyone going to Rio for the Olympics will have paid similar fees to get into that fascinating country.    

But all of this is to pretend that Donald Trump is a serious man with serious policies worth discussing.  He is not, and they are not.  This is a defining moment in American political history.  There are honorable Republicans, including, say, Lindsay Graham, David Brooks, Michael Gerson, John Kasich, Jennifer Rubin, Brent Scowcroft, and, to give the devil his due, Ted Cruz (even though no one seems willing to believe that he acting on the basis of anything other than his perceived self interest), and  no doubt, many others, who I suspect will reveal themselves in coming days.  Some will support Clinton, as is true of Scowcroft and, I think, Rubin.  Incidentally, Rubin has an absolutely terrific column explaining why the Supreme Court does not supply an adequate rationale for conservatives to vote for Trump.  There are a few people who seem genuinely to support Trump, like the pathetic Jeff Sessions and the absolutely contemptible fascist bully Chris Christie.  But the worst circle in political hell should be reserved for craven opportunists like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, whose only recourse, since they can't explain a single redeeming feature about the actual person of Donald Trump, simply pander to a lynch mob the more moderate members of whom simply want to "lock up" Hillary Clinton. 

I note that Ilya Somin quite a while ago admirably indicated that he would not be voting for Donald Trump under any circumstances.  I would hope this is generally true of my friends at the Volokh Conspiracy, who seem to have a natural resting place in the Johnson-Weld candidacy.  Indeed, I very much hope that Johnson-Weld demonstrate enough support to participate in the presidential and vice-presidential debates.  This year especially, it would be an absolute scandal if the debate powers-that-be decide to exclude them because, say, they don't reach an arbitrary level of 15% support.  I would hope that Democrats would join with Libertarians and honorable Republicans in supporting their eligibility for the debates.  
Posted 4:29 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]