Among the many insanities set forth by my fellow pontificator in his predictions about the threats of a Trump presidency, he hid this modest gem of accepted and completely wrong political wisdom:
But since Trump lost the popular vote and will soon be the least respected president in modern history, savvy GOP lawmakers will know that there is not really a mandate to run wild with his most controversial proposals.
Emphasis is mine.
This is one of my least favourite political tropes–the concept that a sufficiently large election victory, or a re-election, confers a “mandate” to enact certain policies. It was a favourite talking point of Democrats after Obama was re-elected. It is becoming a bit of a talking point in favour of Trump’s agenda (whatever it might be). It’s nuts.
Every president has the same mandate to enact his or her policies: The authority vested in the office by the Constitution (subsequently expanded by every demagogue who has held that office) and awarded to the individual president by the electoral college.
Meanwhile, every congressperson has a mandate to exercise his or her authority to vote for or against laws, to filibuster, to provide or withhold advice and consent, and so on. This mandate derives from the congressperson’s election by his or her constituents and is unaffected by whether the president was elected by 51% of those who voted, or 100%. Or 46.6%.
And federal judges enjoy Article III authority to determine the legality of many of the executive’s actions or key policies, again without regard to whether the president and his or her supporters claim that the president holds a “mandate.”
There’s no such thing as a “mandate” to enact certain policies or govern a certain way. There’s just wins, losses, and the rules.