The Trump administration is likely to run into major obstacles in policy implementation

colin_provost

In a recent post on this blog Nigel Bowles argued that Donald Trump will largely be able to carry out his policy agenda when he becomes US president in January. In this post Colin Provost joins the debate, concluding that in the areas of trade, health care, financial regulation and climate change Trump is likely to run into major obstacles. This is because many of Trump’s campaign pledges involve large, complex governing systems and he will have limited control over these systems in their entirety.

Nigel Bowles recently wrote on this blog that President-Elect Trump will be able to push through key parts of his policy agenda in the coming four years, because of the powers afforded to him by the US Constitution and because collective action problems within Congress will prevent meaningful attempts to block his agenda. Many of Dr Bowles’ points are correct and some scholars may argue he does not go far enough in articulating the strengths of the administrative presidency. However, President-Elect Trump has made numerous grandiose promises which potentially affect large policy making networks. The more groups he touches, the more resistance he possibly engenders, thereby making policy making a grinding and tortuous battle. In this post I look at Trump’s proposals for trade, health care, financial regulation and climate change and conclude that his administration is likely to run into major obstacles in each of these areas.

As Dr Bowles has articulated, Donald Trump benefits from collective action problems in Congress and a broad range of constitutional, as well as unilateral, powers. Since the Nixon administration, every president has presided over what Richard Nathan referred to as the ‘administrative presidency’. The president ideologically steers dozens of federal agencies through appointments, s/he can also impose new substantive and procedural requirements on agencies through the use of executive orders, and s/he can employ ‘signing statements’ which enable the president to specify which parts of the law by which s/he would abide. Perhaps most importantly, Terry Moe and William Howell have argued that the Constitution’s language that the president ‘shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ builds ambiguities and discretion into the formal power structure that the president can shrewdly exploit.

Moreover, Trump will have Republican majorities in Congress, as well as a conservative Supreme Court after Trump likely pushes aside Merrick Garland in favour of a more conservative nominee. However, many scholars have noted in recent decades how we no longer study ‘government’, but ‘governance’. Implicit in this concept is the idea that governing is performed by a very large coalition of actors involved not only in a national government, but in subnational governments, in foreign governments, in markets, in non-governmental organisations, in the media, in think tanks and so on. These actors do not all represent veto players of equal power, but taken together, creative means of resisting policies can often be formulated and applied. When we look at some of the President-Elect’s proposals closely, we can envision how his proposals may not be implemented to the extent he would prefer.

Continue reading

Will Congress be able to hold President Trump in check?

nigel-bowlesDonald Trump will become the 45th President of the United States in January, but will he actually be able to carry out his agenda? Nigel Bowles writes that he will largely be able to. In the areas of trade, security, taxation and judicial appointments Congress will struggle to constrain him under current law and politics. Changing immigration law and reforming the Affordable Care Act are likely to prove more challenging. Nonetheless, during the first year of the Trump presidency American politics is likely to give the appearance of being what it only rarely is: a presidential system. For better or for worse, President Trump really will be in charge.

The United States constitution is Madisonian in design and spirit. Separation of powers and federalism in combination are the structure against which, through which, and by which American politics plays out. Much else matters: party, ideology, public opinion, crises external and internal, leadership’s quality of imagination and purpose, especially. But the system’s architecture is Madisonian. It is not (not usually, at least) a presidential system. Instead, federal government comprises separate but coordinate institutions sharing in authority and in power. Article I of the US Constitution places Congress first in this separated Madisonian order. The symbolism of first place reflects Congress’s abundant richness in authority.

Yet Congress’s authority is limited by recurrent and systematic collective action problems. Those problems spring from Congress’s bicameralism, from its four-party organisation across the two chambers, and from its committee structure. They arise, too from electoral bases of legitimacy: from Senators’ identifications with state interests and cultures, from Representatives’ dependence upon their districts’ majority party voters and party activists for biennial re-election. The collective action problems are exacerbated in the early twenty-first century by ideologically distinct, and typically hostile, Congressional parties; and they are complicated by clashing personal ambitions of legislators. These constraints upon Congress’s authority in turn limit its political effectiveness and, accordingly, its collective capacity to bring about intended effects – in other words, its political power.

Continue reading

The US voter registration system is flawed but election officials are working to address the issues

john-lindback-80x108mary-stegmaier-80x108

Amid allegations of widespread voter fraud from Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, the American public has turned its gaze to the maintenance of voter registration lists. John Lindback and Mary Stegmaier provide an overview of the challenges posed by the US’s decentralized voter registration system, and discuss reforms that are already underway to improve the accuracy of voter rolls.

Officials who administer elections in the United States find themselves playing defence this year. In recent months, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has frequently charged that the American elections system is rigged against him. While Trump has offered no concrete evidence of systemic fraud, his repeated claims have created a perception problem. US elections officials have responded by emphasizing that studies do not support his allegations, and by citing the decentralised elections system among the 50 states and the multiple safeguards against hacking voting machines.  But, elections officials will acknowledge that one part of the system – voter registration – is flawed.

The American elections system differs from many other democracies in ways that make maintaining accurate voter registration lists a challenge. The US lacks a tool that most other countries use to determine voter eligibility – a centralised, national registry of citizens. Many countries use their national registries as the basis for voter lists at each voting precinct, which means that citizens are automatically registered to vote. When voters show up at their precinct polling station, they present their national ID card, and if this matches, they are issued the ballot. In contrast, the US has no national registry of American citizens nor is there a universally issued national identification card. Instead, to be eligible to vote, Americans must first take the initiative to register with their state and provide the basic identifying information necessary to determine where they are entitled to cast a ballot. Each state and the District of Columbia maintain its own voter registration rolls – a decentralised system that contrasts with the centralised system used in other countries.  Further, because election law in the US is largely made at the state level, the states vary in their voter ID requirements and registration deadlines. For this election, 10 states and the District of Columbia will allow people to register to vote on Election Day; the rest maintain deadlines that range from a few days to a full month in advance of the election.

Continue reading