Emergency. Emergency! EMERGENCY! No.

Greetings,

DONALD TRUMP DECLARED A NATIONAL EMERGENCY! He’s not ‘thinking’ about it, he’s DONE it… three times, actually, once in 2017 and twice in 2018. (In a painful spasm of irony, one of these declarations even enabled sanctions “in the event of foreign interference in a United States election.”) But our clown-prince will have to look elsewhere if he wants to reach new heights for misuse of power. Woodrow Wilson declared the first National Emergency in 1917, and the US is currently operating under 31 separate national emergencies, some going back to Jimmy Carter…

Donald Trump “proudly” shut down our Government because his own Republican Congress wouldn’t give him money for an ineffective vanity project. He wasn’t even asking for the $60 billion (or more) to complete it, but a $5.7 billion sucker’s hook to commit us to a fantasy forcefield instead of needed and effective border protection. Bipartisan revulsion at Trump’s idea of a sham “national emergency” to get his funding has stayed his hand so far, but as Trump’s shutdown cripples the country, the idea of unfettered emergency power may grow more attractive. To Trump, at least.

Migration is a world-wide problem, and our own immigration system has serious flaws that need real attention. But “emergency” isn’t a synonym for “problem”. To me, “emergency” implies at least a serious and probably even existential threat that would destroy everything if the worst case happened. An “emergency” would threaten a large part of our people, our country, or our world… the peril of an individual, while serious, wouldn’t be an “emergency” to the country. And there’s a time element to “emergency” that demands action immediately because action later would be useless. Immigration policy is unresolved, unsettled, a problem by any standard, but not a “crisis” or an “emergency”. It does NOT justify emergency powers.

Our Constitution constrains presidents for good reasons and I can’t imagine a world where we’d be better off because Donald Trump had less supervision and more power. However, capable, qualified presidents may well face situations justifying rapid action, greater flexibility, or more control. World War II makes the classic case, but I don’t think war is the only possible basis for emergency powers. I think there are real, existential, worldwide threats demanding immediate and widespread action.

Climate Change is the prime example… a potentially extinction-level event where even minimal action is blocked by the syndicate of fossil-fuel companies and the leeches paid to deny science. The latest models give us about 12 years to change or face a runaway positive feedback loop and a nasty, brutish, short path to destruction, but an extra-empowered President might put us on a track to useful action. How about the takeover of our government by corporations and billionaires? It’s destroying our economic lives and political liberties, but it won’t be solved if government is bought-and-paid-for by those same corporations and billionaires. A super-president not beholden to these financial interests could push rules to curb their power. Our lack of national healthcare is a disgrace that kills thousands every year, and I’d love to see a president with not just the will, but the power, to do something about it! What about loose nukes, endless war, Russian influence around the world, Flint’s water, Puerto Rico’s agony, rebuilding in the wake of fires and floods, or a host of other serious, time-sensitive foreign and domestic issues that are stymied by governmental gridlock? Any one of these would be stronger justifications for emergency power than Trump’s border wall farce.

But even in these situations I’d hesitate to grant emergency powers to a president… any president. A president capable and balanced enough to trust with emergency powers probably wouldn’t need or want them. They’d be much better off using their skills working with citizens and government, within our existing process, to create innovative new solutions like the Green New Deal. The power available to a president in emergency is vast, but comes with no guarantees… it could be used for the reasons stated, or it could be used for things not covered by the original justification at all. Emergency powers might be used stupidly, for instance by a president who tries to solve Climate Change by implementing a massive new program to expand fracking or CleanÔ Coal. And don’t ignore Frederick Douglass’ reminder that “Power concedes nothing without demand”… what happens when ‘crisis’ is over and the president is reluctant to relinquish their intoxicating new power? Emergency power represents a roll of the dice that should only be taken as a very last resort. We face many real emergencies, but few if any are worth the risk of creating a rogue unitary executive.

All politics has a theater side, and emergency powers are no different. They sound scary but the 31 current national emergency conditions prove our country can survive them… at least so far. But let’s imagine some hypothetical day when a weak and incompetent president finds themselves the victim of their own inadequacy in a situation they can barely comprehend and certainly can’t control. The power of political theatrics could easily help them manufacture an ‘emergency’ to terrify a fearful and unwitting base who won’t see the downside of delivering unbounded power to their ‘father figure’. But idiots, hucksters, demagogues, and tyrants are nothing new, and the Founders were familiar with them all. The method they devised to control them was to limit their power and force them to collaborate with colleagues to get things done, not to give them unbridled authority over an angry and uncompliant population.

“Emergency” may be somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but some aspects are undeniable… an existential threat, needing direct action, compounded by time. Our country is indeed faced with real emergencies, but not one of them would be better resolved by expanding presidential powers.

Make a great day,

aaazTomSignature