A Weberian take on the 2016 Republican nominee (Or, James Madison is dead and has left the building)

[NOTE:  I HAVE REVISED THIS POSTING TO INCLUDE SOME MATERIAL FROM ONE OF MY COMMENTS BELOW].  I HAVE ALSO ADDED SOME ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AT THE END, WITH A LINK TO AN IMPORTANT ARTICLE FROM TODAY'S WASHINGTON POST.]

Writing in 1918, the great German political sociologist criticized all systems of “direct election by the people of the bearer of supreme power” as having within them an impulse toward Caesarism.  Although, as a technical matter, we don’t have such “direct election” of presidents in the U.S., because of the inane electoral college, it’s also the case that, quite obviously, the actual electors serve no useful purpose as genuine filters between popular sentiment and presidential selection.  They are expected simply to mirror the preferences of the majorities in their states (save in Maine and Nebraska which don’t follow the winner-take-all principle, but still give electors no real judgment).  Indeed, we refer to electors who do think for themselves as “rogues,” though, fortunately, none has been truly consequential in choosing a president   The great alternative to “direct election,” of course, is parliamentary designation, in which the “bearer of supreme power” is always vulnerable to the parliamentary majority.  Political parties can claim “mandates,” but in a properly functioning parliamentary system, prime ministers cannot claim personal mandates that override the wishes of their parties or coalitions that placed them in power. 

What we are seeing today, in the sociopathic Donald Trump is the playing out of the Weberian analysis.  The sociopathic, narcissitic Trump is far more “Caesarist” than Caesar himself.  Julius Caesar, after all, had demonstrated real abilities as a general, and one assumes that many Romans thought he had real talents of leadership.  It is telling, of course, that almost literally no one at the Republican Convention made a positive case for their sociopathic champion.  It was all anti-Hillary, all the time. Their hatred of Hillary leads them to support a sociopath.

In all fairness, though, one should not assume that Weber’s analysis kicks in only this year, without any such inklings prior to this dreadful political year.  My colleague Jeff Tulis has written a classic book, The Rhetorical Presidency, that emphasizes the break, which he identifies with Woodrow Wilson, with a relatively modest conception of the presidency, signified by such things as the fact that candidates really did not engage in personal campaigns and presidents did not, for example, deliver their State of the Union messages in person.  Wilson, who (justifiably) disdained much about the U.S. Constitution, envisioned himself as a prime minister charged with truly "leading" the nation.  One might, of course, also pay attention to his predecessor Teddy Roosevelt and his conception of the presidency as offering a "bully pulpit."  And, of course, modern communications technology offered strikingly new possibilities.  Calvin Coolidge, perhaps surprisingly, was the first president to make use of radio, though, of course, it was FDR, with his fireside chats, who perfected that medium.  And then there came television....   So one might argue that the great quantum jump toward a more Caesarist conception of the presidency was the Kennedy election of 1960, when television really became important (not to mention the Kennedy fortune), and an attractive young senator with precious little accomplishment to his name, but lots of "charisma," a Weberian word that first made its entrance into common punditry, was able to get the nomination and, of course, the election.  He and his wife charmed the public, and his assassination made many feel that we had lost a try incomparable leader.  And, of course, there was the psycho-drama of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Kennedy simply ignored existing political structures in favor of the EX-COM and, ultimately, made the decision on his own to risk World War II by ordering a "quarantine" of Cuba that, fortunately, worked.  

Skip forward to Ronald Reagan, who honed all of his professional skills to likewise charm the public.  (And, in fairness, he had demonstrated a competence for politics in governing California for eight years, even if one was, like me, appalled by his political views.)  More and more we seem to look to presidents to "lead," to have "visions," not to mention 20-point programs that are presented as the cures for whatever ail us.  As an avid supporter of Barack Obama in 2008 (against Hillary  Clinton, of course), I think it appropriate to note the Caesarist aspects of his own remarkable campaign, including the reliance on mass rallies and vague promises.  Tellingly, as he emphasized in his own marvelous speech earlier this week, Obama never once suggested that only he could guide us out of the political wilderness, but it is certainly the case that many of his supporters viewed him, in Maureen Dowd’s snarky language, as “the chosen One”  whose unique abilities and "audacity" would lead us out of the wilderness.  Not surprisingly, he disappointed such hopes, but that's another matter.  (For what it's worth, I think we're going to miss Obama's steadiness when he leaves office.)

Republicans, of course, believe that Obama is increasingly governing in a Caesarist fashion; the man who reminded us that he was not "king" or "emperor" has indeed engaged in a variety of unilateralist decisions, and some Republican judges agree (including, presumably, the four conservative Republicans who inhabit the current Supreme Court).  I disagree with some of the specific examples, but I’m distinctly uncomfortable with some of the claims to unilateral military authority that Obama has made, even if they rest on, shall we say, generous readings of congressional delegations of power to the President.  Perhaps his most dramatic exercise of unilateralism was his exchange of prisoners with the Taliban in defiance of a clear congressional directive that Congress be given 30-days notice.  One can readily agree with his motives and still be a bit (or more) perturbed about his extravagant reading of his powers as Commander-in-Chief.  

It is certainly the case that both Democratic and Republican presidents have been extending their powers in reaction to the breakdown of Congress as a truly functioning institution.  Caesarists' power, after all, isn't necessary seized; it is often delegated by supine legislatures either caught up in party loyalty or a simple reluctance to engage in the hard tasks of governance (and the necessity of spending an inordinate amount of time raising money in a thoroughly corrupting system of campaign finance).

What the sociopathic narcissitic running for President under the Republican label wants is exactly what Weber predicted, an “acclamation” by scared masses who basically license him to do quite literally whatever he wishes to meet the problems he identifies.  To believe, as do some of those "supporting" him with our "endorsing" him (think, e.g., of Mitch McConnell, that he is capable of being internally constrained by the notion of legal obligation or duties is a sheer fantasy.  Sociopathic narcissists recognize no such internal obligations.  They are the epitome of Holmesian "bad men," who calculate everything in terms of personal profit and loss.  Trump is exactly what Lincoln was warning against in his 1838 speech about the threat of a would-be all-powerful leader sweeping aside the ostensible constraints of our constitutional order.  (Of course, it is fashionable to impute to Lincoln himself the elements of the "lion" and "eagle" that transcended such restraints.  He certainly didn't earn his Memorial as a denizen of orthodox rule of law.)  

Whether it would take a Brutus to tame our current American would-be-Caesar remains to be seen.  One hopes that the electorate will make any such actions irrelevant.  What we already see is the public rebellion by patriotic members of the CIA who are apparently reluctant to brief him on national security matters because they properly believe that sociopathic narcissists are not to be trusted.   (This is, obviously, wholly different from the critique of Hillary Clinton directed by the “lock-her-up” crowd.  No doubt she behaved stupidly, but only her most frothing and demented opponents believe that she ever misused any of the top-secret materials she was privy to.)  No one can have any such confidence regarding any sociopathic narcissist., including the Republican nominee. Were he to be elected as an American Caesar, then, even in the absence of a Brutus, we would have to rely on patriotic members of the armed services simply to refuse to follow his orders, either because they were manifestly illegal (i.e., engage in torture) or because they were simply sociopathic in terms of their implications for the international political order.  I have my reservations about JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis with regard to his willingness to risk World War III; of course, I’m in the minority, at least among Americans.  Most people apparently believe that Kennedy had “good reason” to do so.  But, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, Donald Trump is no Jack Kennedy, and there is no reason to place an iota of trust in the judgment of a narcissistic sociopath.

Folks, this is where we are in our contemporary political situation.  But, as Weber suggested almost a century, Trumpism may be a dangerous virus located in the DNA of the American constitutional order and its ever-greater valorization of presidents as maximum leaders with grandiose visions they have "mandates" to implement, whatever it takes.  No serious political system should have to contemplate the possibility of being “governed” by a narcissistic sociopath.  Paul Ryan and his ilk are simply useful idiots who deserve the utter contempt of anyone who takes the project of a "republican form of government" seriously (unless that means to be governed by whoever manages to steal the "Republican" label). There are honorable Republicans, beginning with John Kasich and, dare I say it, Ted Cruz, and including many--though not yet enough--others.  

Indeed, I am tempted to suggest that just as Yad Vashem in Jerusalem has a walkway devoted to "righteous Gentiles" who saved Jews during World War II, we should start listing "righteous Republicans" who in fact have demonstrated that they have moral backbone in our country's hour of need.  I am more than willing to honor people I usually disagree with, for standing up to a true menace.  I have become an obsessive about Hamilton, which I consider a work of true genius.  Aaron Burr sings at the end of the play his realization, too late, of course, that the world is big enough for "both Hamilton and me."  Or, in terms of the great American mythos, Hamilton and Jefferson, both of whom were genuine patriots who had conflicting visions of what was best for the country.  We have benefitted from having both as part of our heritage.  Trump, however, is another matter.  He has not a semblance of what both Hamilton and Jefferson would have described as "virtue."  He has, as was noted by the father of the slain soldier last week, never engaged in an iota of personal sacrifice; indeed, the whole notion is beyond him, as it is for any Holmesian bad man.   

Hillary is right:  This is not a traditional election.  My own hope is that Republicans will join Michael Bloomberg and others in voting for Hillary, who I do think is superbly qualified to be President.  But Gary Johnson and Bill Weld offer a completely acceptable alternative for persons for whom Hillary is a bridge too far (however troubled the waters).  And it would be good for the country if enough Republicans started manifesting their support for Johnson that he could join the debates.  

Perhaps the most profoundly sad spectacle of the season is John McCain, who so lusts after another term in the Senate--one can only wonder why--that he has foregone any sense of republican (or Republican) honor.  A man who heroically endured torture and refused early release because that would betray his comrades is willing to betray the country (and his Party) by supporting a narcissistic sociopath.  These are truly dark times, though for reasons very different from those suggested by the sociopathic narcissist.  My obsessive fear is that, when Hillary is elected, we will collectively congratulate ourselves for dodging a potentially fatal bullet and return to our blithe confidence, in Gerald Ford's reassuring words, that "the long nightmare is over" because "the system worked."  I wish it were that easy.   

I heartily commend an article in today's Washington Post by Marc Fisher on the powers available to a modern president.  Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule published a few years ago an important book, The Executive Unbound:  After the Madisonian Republic, notable, among other things, for its almost exuberant embrace of much of the jurisprudential approach of Carl Schmitt, in his own analysis of developments in Germany during the Weimar era and the rise of the modern administrative state.  The central point--which is true as well of a forthcoming book on the administrative state by Vermeule--is that the central characteristic of the modern state is the amount of discretion it lodges in the executive branch in general.  And, to the extent one accepts some of the more extravagant theories of the "unitary executive," it is the President who ultimately enjoys a sufficient degree of discretionary authority, based either on readings of the Constitution or on broad statutes passed by Congress delegating power to the Executive, to justify the assertion that we in the U.S. have our own form of "constitutional dictatorship." especially if we elect a person who is without a genuine internal compass.   And, of course, the President gets to pick his own lawyers, the most important of whom are in the White House or the Office of Legal Counsel.  George W. Bush was able to find John Yoo and now-judge Jay Bybee.  I have no doubt that a President Trump, empowered by the Constitution to nominate judges (who would be confirmed by a morally-bankrupt Republican Party who would prattle about their duty to follow the wishes off the public that elected Trump, which is how they have justified their spinelessness in endorsing Trump as their candidate), would be able to find his share of ambitious lawyers, some educated, no doubt, at Harvard or Yale (think of the egregious Kris Kobach, the architect of the anti-immigrant laws that plague our country), who would happily construe the extant legal materials to allow Trump to do just about whatever he wanted.  (Remember, incidentally, the pardon power, the great wildcard in the American constitutional system that allows a president to offer a get-out-of-jail free card to whomever he or she wishes.)  All of this is simply to suggest that those who place their faith in the Madisonian system of checks and balances to save us from the ravages of a sociopathic narcissist are deluding themselves., at the empirical level, even if one shares their belief in Madisonianism.  But James Madison has truly, and irrevocably, left the building.   The only serious argument is exactly when that occurred, and I personally think the answer is no later than 1796, when the development of contentious political parties put the lie to his vision of republican government by virtuous elites "above" mere factional interests.  

Whatever one thinks of Berlusconi, who was, by any account, dreadful, I'm not aware that he could claim to control the world's most powerful military and to wreck the world political system by virtue of his idiosyncratic decisions.  Whether or not we are the "indispensable nation," to quote Madeline Albright, we are surely (at least) the 800-pound gorilla, and the decisions made by the U.S. president are simply more important than the decisions made by almost any other given person in the world.  (I leave it to others to debate whether the head  of the Chinese government is a 600- or 700-pound gorilla; ditto Putin.  Does it really matter exactly what the weight is?)  
--