“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”-George Orwell.
Previous entries:
- Chronicling Trump Right in Front our Noses: The Case of iPhones
- In Front of our Noses: The Golden Dome
- In Front of Our Noses: Lies about Balancing the Budget
The point of these posts is to highlight specific, clear examples of Trump’s attempts at blatantly constructing his own authoritarian unreality. It is a list that may be of use to me in the future or to readers. It is also hopefully places seeds that I hope will germinate in the minds of supporters who may some day question that support.
This entry leapt out at me when I was reading James Joyner’s post about Trump’s speech at West Point. The emphasis is mine. (Source: Rolling Stone):
“We had the greatest election victory,” Trump told cadets of the elite United States Military Academy. “This was November 5. We won the popular vote by millions of votes. We won all seven swing states. We won everything.… We had a great mandate, and it gives us the right to do what we want to do to make our country great again, and that’s what we’re going to do.”
(If you need to hear and see him say it, it is roughly at the 27-minute mark.)
The most basic rejoinder to the bolded portion is simply no.
No, it doesn’t.
I know that is by no means the first time he has made this claim. He made some similar claims going back to his first term and his interpretation (I used the words advisedly) of Article II.
But this notion that his victory in 2024 equates to a magic mandate is one that he and his supporters constantly propagate. Granted, they can try and get away with as much as they can, and indeed, they have already gotten away with a lot. But his victory does not provide a “right” to “do what we want to do.” No electoral victory does.
That’s not democracy. That’s not American constitutionalism.
The president has the right to work within the established constitutional system, with all the constraints that go along with that.
Note that one of the things the president is charged with doing is taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. These laws precede the president, and he is bound by them.
A key aspect of non-personalistic governance, and therefore core to democracy, is that the fact that given official is part of a broader journey. A president, a Prime Minister, a Senator, or whomever, is a temporary cog in a much larger machine. They have to function within that which has been built before they arrived, and that is far bigger than they are. Sure, they can try and change things, but they have to do so within the confines of the established constitutional and legal order. And to change things requires convincing others that the change is worthwhile, not just installing change by fiat.
Governing by fiat is what dictators do.
I would hasten to note that we were all told that when he claimed he would be a dictator, he was just “joking.”
And yet, claiming the right to do whatever you want in government is to claim dictatorial powers.
I would ask people who thought he was joking to think about what he continues to claim are his rights as a result of winning.
He has, in fact, been trying to rule by decree (whether by Executive Orders or social media posts). He has not bothered to seek congressional approval for many very dramatic acts (see, DOGE). He and his cronies have ignored the courts when they think they can get away with it (see how they have failed to pretend to comply with the rulings regarding Kilmar Agbrego Garcia, to pick one easy-to-understand example).
It is worth noting, too, since truth matters: he won a fairly narrow victory in terms of the popular vote. He bested Harris 49.81% to 48.34%, a margin of 1.47%. Moreover, 50.19% of votes cast were not for him. And while yes, the Electoral College amplifies his victory, even his 58% to 42% win is hardly a historical margin (source).
I would hasten to add that margin of victory ultimately neither confers less power nor more power to the winner in any formal sense. But even in terms of symbolism and popular support, he has no legitimate claim to make. He is a man who lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020, and won a close victory in 2024. This is not he stuff of “I am so beloved that I can do whatever I want” (which, I would stress, would still be a violation of the constitutional order and an anti-democratic position).
A side note: he wore a blatantly partisan political symbol to give this speech. He continues to promote his own brand over that of the brand of the presidency. That is the move of someone who wants to be a dictator.
A coda on this event from Tom Nichols.
Indeed.
