It’s un-American to hope our president is guilty of “high crimes.” Wishing the president to be branded a criminal and booted prematurely from office means wishing ever-greater division upon the United States. We can scarcely afford further disunion. That’s why we must put aside our passions and allow the exercise to run its course. We should demand that our representatives approach the deliberations soberly, without political malice. An impeachment motivated by public anger above truth would set a precedent far worse than whatever poor conduct it sought to remedy. Democrats in Congress should not rush to judgment, and they are obligated to run a fair process in the House. Similarly, if the evidence points to criminality, Republicans must not resist justice because it is politically inconvenient. They must follow the facts where they lead.
While I cannot discuss the specifics surrounding the present allegations against the president involving Ukraine beyond what is in the public record, as a general proposition it should not surprise anyone that Donald Trump would act in a manner that is unbecoming of his office and possibly disqualifying. He has always acted impulsively to serve his interests over those of the United States. As I’ve noted, he has repeatedly concocted ways to break the law if it gets him what he wants. More stories remain to be told and will come out in the months and years ahead. His ideas are often resisted, but they prove that Trump is indifferent to the reasons why presidents shouldn’t abuse their power for personal gain. When he is warned about the propriety or legality of his proposals, he is agitated—to the point that he has pushed out many of the senior people who’ve tried to protect him. He has few guardrails left. More worrisome, reelection will convince him he is freer than ever to put his self-interest above the national interest.
Donald Trump’s record is troubling. At some point, aspects of it might be found to have violated his oath of office. Unless and until that happens, though, all of the above courses of action are undesirable ways to fire a president. One option—and one option only—stands above the rest as the ultimate way to hold Trump accountable.
The People Themselves
In an anonymous essay designed to whip up support for the draft of the US Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “…the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves.” No other political force should decide whether he stays or goes, save for exceptional circumstances. There is a single right way, prescribed by the architects of this country, for holding our leaders to account. It is as elegant as it is blunt. It is the transmission line for all power in our political system, determining who gains, retains, and loses authority. It is the election.
The people are the best and most legitimate recourse for our present political dilemma. The democratic process exists for this very purpose, and we rely on transparent public debate and the popular will to keep leaders in check. The voters must review the president’s conduct and decide whether Donald Trump is fit for office, whether he embodies the American spirit, and whether we will allow the behavior of one man to define us as a whole.
The solemn responsibility rests with each of us. By definition, an electorate is the sum of the people in a nation entitled to vote. In the United States, approximately 75 percent of the population is of “voting age,” but turnout tends to be closer to 50 percent. That means in our upcoming and highly contested presidential race, half of the country will make a momentous decision for the others. One half will define us all.
We must remember that we are whom we elect. “Like man, like state,” Plato wrote two millennia ago. “Governments vary as the characters of men vary. States are made out of the human natures which are in them.” The government of the United States is whatever it is because the people are whatever they are. The nature of one man, the president, is not what shapes the collective attributes of a nation. It is the other way around. Our views, our aspirations, and our morality are what define the republic and are meant to be reflected by the people we elect.
On voting day, we will have had four years to make up our minds about Donald Trump. Entering the booth, there will be many factors to weigh when considering whether to reelect him to the presidency. Is he more qualified than the others? Is he offering a more compelling agenda? Has he demonstrated a record of success? As we stare at our secret ballots, the most important question of all will be: Does he reflect us?
There are several ways to answer the question. The first is “Yes, he does.” Donald Trump reflects our nation, and therefore, the choice is obvious. The voter will seek to reelect him. He’s the right guy for the job. The second is “No, he doesn’t.” If during one term in office, Trump has fallen short of our standards and doesn’t faithfully reflect our values, there is a chance to course-correct. The electoral process doesn’t pronounce a final sentence; it offers the chance to fix mistakes. The voter will choose someone else.
There is a third answer, though: “Yes, he does. But it’s not acceptable.” A voter may conclude that Donald Trump’s roller-coaster presidency is a faithful representation of what is happening in our society. They may argue that the 2016 presidential election resulted in the elevation of a man who embodied our country’s internal strife. His measure of wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance is a strong indicator of whether we are demonstrating those traits ourselves. Yet that doesn’t mean we have to submit to the malaise. We can admit that, although we ended up with the president we deserved the first time, we want better.
A single election will not change who we are, but it can signal that we intend to go a new direction. It’s only a first step. In the conclusion of this book, we will talk about the more urgent repairs needed under the hood of our republic. For now, any rehabilitation of “We the People” can begin with a declarative statement of change from “We the Electorate.”
In an odd way, an even bigger worry for our republic is what may happen if Trump is removed from office—by impeachment or a narrow defeat in the ballot box—and he refuses to go. In the beginning of the administration, I could see a man still in awe that he was sitting in the Oval Office, struggling to play the role of president. No conversation was too distant from the 2016 election and how, in his view, it was nearly “stolen” from him. Deep down there was a nagging insecurity that maybe he didn’t belong there. It was one reason why few dared to bring up Russia’s indisputable interference on his behalf in the election. But he quickly grew accustomed to the trappings of power, the ability to summon servants or Diet Cokes with the push of a button, to show the majesty of the Oval Office to visitors, to bellow orders and expect them to be followed. Trump relishes the cocoon he has built. He will not exit quietly—or easily. It is why at many turns he suggests “coups” are afoot and a “civil war” is in the offing. He is already seeding the narrative for his followers—a narrative that could end tragically.
Our moment for this conversation is now. We will lose all hope of having a real dialogue within ourselves and with our neighbors in the immediate run-up to Election Day. Rationality will be locked away at that point, and our judgment will be clouded by emotion. It’s always been this way in our system. If we consider our national character and that of our current president—in advance of voting—it will inform how we react in the heat of that moment. It may temper our factionalism during the race. Hopefully it will prevent us from making self-destructive choices on the ballot.