America is currently suffering a crisis of governance which prevents adequate action from the executive branch in response to Russian government-sponsored social media activity in the 2016 election. This context is necessary to see past the day-to-day noise of the American media’s attempts to label Russian election interference––and the political fallout––as a crisis uniquely rooted in the Trump presidency. Such an outlook has been a windfall for news television ratings, but it has obfuscated a clear analysis of troubling truths regarding America’s long-term political future.
Media pundits have derided President Trump for not taking an adequate stand as the nation’s commander-in-chief against Russian election interference. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictments of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities for “information warfare” against the United States claims that, “Some Defendants, posing at U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.”
Granted, President Trump’s reaction, tweeted out of course, was not presidential. He blamed his predecessor for failing to take action against Russian efforts of subversion. He falsely accused his former opponent, Hillary Clinton, of colluding with Russia. Emblematic of mainstream media reaction, Politico chided, Trump attacks everyone but Russia. Some figures have been even more extreme in their criticism. Max Boot portrayed Trump as aloof to what he called, “the worst attack on America since 9/11.”
The central thrust to these arguments is clear. Donald Trump is failing to play the role as a unifying statesman, rallying the American people to a common cause of protecting their democratic system against any future attacks in the dark arts of “hybrid warfare.” While Mr. Boot’s analogy to 9/11 is hyperbole, and arguably offensive to the memory of the innocent Americans who died that day, he is understandably trying to draw a connection between President Bush uniting the country in response to a foreign attack and Trump’s apparent inability to do so. After Pearl Harbor, FDR fulfilled a similar role, leading America to its most triumphant victory in war. However, these expectations of President Trump are highly unrealistic and myopic in our current political climate given the rupture of deep political divisions and a significant weakening of the US presidency in the last several decades.
Key works of American political scientists can help explain the inadequacies of the presidency in effectively responding to this crisis. American political scientist Samuel Huntington foreshadowed the current state of the American presidency in his 1975 work, “The Crisis of American Democracy” according to Carlos Lozada of the Washington Post. Lozada points to Huntington lamenting the declining power of the American presidency in the post-Watergate era. “Probably no development of the 1960s and 1970s has greater import for the the future of American politics than the decline in the authority, status, influence, and effectiveness of the presidency. If American citizens don’t trust their government, why should friendly foreigners? If American citizens challenge the authority of American government, why shouldn’t unfriendly governments?”
Huntington’s argument––and Lozada’s analysis––rings special significance in understanding the president’s limits in responding to the 2016 disinformation campaign. The presidency no longer carries the reverence and gravitas it once commanded in the hearts of the mainstream public. That respect once made transformative presidents. With overwhelming support, both Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan fundamentally transformed the United States and its standing in the world in the image of their respective ideologies. The presidency no longer commands such power due to a fundamental distrust of authority arising from the 1960s and Watergate.
Beyond 1975, this crisis of legitimacy is even more profound for our current era. Since the Clinton Administration, no president has cultivated a respect that transcended political affiliation. Bill Clinton became intensely reviled by the American right due to his personal conduct and divisive liberal policies. His impeachment was a prologue to our hyper-partisan era. While his successor, George Bush, briefly captured the support of 90%+ Americans in the wake of 9/11, that support quickly evaporated with the onset of the Iraq war. President Obama enjoyed six years of Congressional deadlock in the wake of the 2010 tea party revolt, failing to pass any of his progressive agenda through congress in that time. Donald Trump closed out 2017 by becoming the most unpopular president in the modern era.
This trend of presidential ineptitude has dramatically accelerated since the distrust of presidential authority emerging from the watergate scandal. It stems in part from a 24-hour cable news cycle, which came to fruition in the 90s and turned the presidency into something of a reality tv show (sound familiar?). Alternative sources of media on the internet allow partisans to burrow deeper than ever before into an echo chamber, receiving completely different facts than their political opposition, preventing any sort of basic understanding from being reached, effectively causing a president to be either loved or reviled with effectively no middle ground possible. A culture of conspiracy theories de-legitimizes or legitimizes the policies of a president in the eyes of detractors or supporters respectively. The sheer partisanship and anger that our media can create ensures that a president does not gain widespread support for any proposed policies, even if the broad public instinctively agree with them. This media revolution could perhaps ensure that no future administration in the foreseeable future will enjoy a broad mandate to enact a transformative legacy at home and abroad.
However, the weaknesses of the modern presidency go beyond the advent of 24-hour cable news and social media. Indeed, for those media developments to have true power, they need a susceptible audience. Richard Hofstadter’s The Paranoid Style of American Politics details how the American people have consistently been susceptible to conspiracy theories in forming overarching narratives on political life. Citing historical examples, Hofstadter points to the anti-Masonic movement of the early 19th century as the first coherent manifestation of widespread angst against malevolent, shadowy and shady forces aimed at subverting America. This sentiment continued into Hofstadter’s own era. He focused on the 1960s right wing under Barry Goldwater, which saw America as under siege from cosmopolitan elites, intellectuals, socialists and various left-wing forces all aimed at destroyed the past values which had created and sustained American greatness.
This paranoia identified by Hofstadter has reached stratospheric levels in the last few years. The Russia investigation in particular has become a platform for various left and right political forces to project their own conspiracy theories. Right wing figures argue that a malevolent “deep state” intent on delegitimizing Trump concocted the idea of Russian election interference out of thin air. Various liberal factions through their own echo chambers became convinced that the highest levels of Donald Trump’s campaign had a deep, personal relationship with Vladimir Putin, leading the two forces to directly collaborate in the 2016 election.
This culture of conspiracy-mongering perfectly captures our divisive era and it is most strongly being channeled toward the popular perception of the presidency. In other words, the office of the presidency has lost a national sense of reverence which propelled the executive to take decisive action with the backing of the country. That reality, necessary to propel and promote a coherent strategy in response to Russia’s actions, no longer exists. In Donald Trump’s America, the office has reached a high water mark of sorts in terms of becoming the ultimate outlet for Americans to vent their anger, hostility and frustration with their countrymen.
Mueller must be investigated for sexual harassment.