Democrats have a glimpse of the post-Trump plan: decrees

Presidential candidates used to boast of their ability to reduce Washington's partisan divisions and accomplish great things by uniting different factions.

But with Republicans likely to retain control of the Senate in 2020 – and a new norm taking root after three successive administrations that have acted aggressively to make decisions binding – Democratic presidential candidates are beginning to show more and more ambitious goals by themselves.

History continues below

The promises of campaigning for the signing of decrees are not new. But the frequency of this year's promises and their expansiveness mark a break with the practice.

This is the tacit recognition of an increasingly dysfunctional polarized system of government – a system that can not be repaired by any candidate. It is believed that in this context, the only option for a potential president to make useful decisions is to take unilateral action by signing decrees.

"It's essentially the only way to govern now," said Andrew Feldman, Democratic strategist in Washington. "It's a bit of a lifestyle."

Regarding the decrees, he said: "You can actually accomplish a lot and, as we saw with the Trump administration, you can do a lot of harm."

Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas), former representative of the Lebanese Republic, announced on Monday his intention to take steps to join the Paris agreement on climate and to adopt a regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. greenhouse gas.

Last week, Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) Committed in a public meeting of CNN to take action on firearms control in the first 100 days if Congress does not adopt not a big law.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) Promised to sign a "no drilling" decree – a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases, including drilling at sea and on public land. . "

On a litany of political issues ranging from immigration to environmental protection, Trump has infuriated the Democrats with his executive actions. The Democrats had a legislative failure with the president when they took over the House in last year's mid-term elections. But Democrats are longing for a presidential candidate who, if elected, will immediately tackle the cancellation of Trump's work.

He will almost certainly have to do it without the help of the Senate. Although Democrats have a narrow path to gain a majority, Republicans are more likely to retain control. In the early stages of the presidential campaign, candidates have been under pressure from activists to explain what they will do without the cooperation of Republicans.

"All presidential candidates recognize that the Senate will be the place where good politics will disappear," said RL Miller, founder of the super PAC Climate Hawks Vote.

She explained that the focus of the candidates on the executive orders was the product of a "legitimate frustration with the polarized nature of the Congress and an awareness that the Congress was in fact at an impasse – particularly the Senate".

Promises to exercise executive powers – by order, proclamation or other means – have sometimes played a prominent role in the countryside. In 1976, while campaigning for the presidency, Jimmy Carter promised to grant unconditional forgiveness to thousands of people who had escaped the draft resolution during the Vietnam War, a proclamation made at his first full day in power.

But the controversy around the practice has reached new heights with President Barack Obama and a recalcitrant Congress – and now, Trump. Obama, although initially cautious about executive power, used his pen to enact significant changes in climate, immigration and labor after declaring in 2011 that "with a Congress more and more dysfunctional … Where I will not act, I will do it.

Like most Republicans, Trump had criticized Obama before taking office by writing on Twitter in 2014 that "the rebels should not allow President Obama to overthrow the US Constitution to his advantage and because he is unable to negotiate with Congress. "

But the president has come to fully embrace the executive power once in power, taking advantage of his 100th day in 2017 to point out that no president since the Second World War has signed so many decrees at this stage of his presidency.

He continued his momentum, but not by strange numbers. In the first two years of his presidency, Trump issued 92 decrees, 18 more than Obama and seven more than George W. Bush during their first two years, according to the Federal Register Office.

Yet, Obama's move to Trump at the White House has highlighted a loophole in executive actions: they can be reversed or, at a minimum, be bogged down in court.

In March, an Alaskan federal court banned the Trump government from lifting the ban on oil and gas leasing in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, concluding that the 2017 Trump executive order had "overstepped the authority of the president ".

Last month, Trump was again subject to a legal threat after signing two orders to limit the power of states to block or delay the construction of oil and gas pipelines.

One of its opponents: Washington Governor Jay Inslee, Democratic presidential candidate, promised in a prepared statement "to challenge any attempt by the government to illegally coerce Washington's authority to protect natural resources of our State ".

Inslee is expected to propose its own executive actions or other actions when it sets out its plans to tackle climate change.

This is precisely the problem raised by a multitude of candidates who promise to pass their will by executive orders: this opens up the prospect of a political system in which each successive administration will devote its time to canceling the work of the former.

For candidates offering their own orders, said Les Francis, White House's deputy chief of staff in the Carter administration, "Talking about an order on the campaign is a lot easier than respecting it by the through normal legislative procedures. "

He said, "I think it's more about appealing to different segments of the electorate – to get people up, question by question. It is in a context of dysfunctions and paralysis. But I think it's more: "How do you get people awake?"

However, while the proposed decree is an effective opening for primary voters, it also points to shortcomings in modern politics.

Bo Cutter, a White House veteran Carter and Clinton, spoke of the uncertainty surrounding the protections accorded to undocumented immigrants – the object of contradictory acts by Obama and Trump – to illustrate the danger of governing through the action of the executive.

As the decrees reflect the inability of the president and lawmakers to cooperate, he predicted that, eventually, "people will get really fed up with that … More and more, citizens will be disappointed with the whole enterprise ".

For a presidential candidate, he said: "This is probably not yet a political mistake."

However, he added, "I think it's a mistake of government."