One of the most studied tenets in comparative politics is the inherent instability in presidential systems. First proposed by Juan Linz, the basic insight is that in a system where the main actors have contrasting sources of legitimacy, deadlock is not just more likely, but the norm. This, in turn, leads to governmental incapacity, public disappointment, apathy and eventual democratic collapse.
The argument is a popular one in political science. It has certainly been quite robust as an explanation for Latin American coups, but there was always a big outlier that had to be explained away somehow—the United States. Not only was the US the oldest democracy in the world, but the country had never really approached anything close to a democratic breakdown; not even during the Civil War, when Lincoln was re-elected even as the conflict raged on. There really seemed to be something about American exceptionalism.
Not anymore.
To be clear, I do not expect the United States to experience democratic breakdown in the near future, although even that is not as certain as it once was. Nonetheless, it has become quite apparent that the country is not immune to the pitfalls of presidentialism. Deadlock has occurred in the past, of course, but it has become particularly acute since the 1990s. Given how ideology has sorted itself into the two parties, divided government has become a zero-sum game where creating coherent lawmaking, let alone optimal policies is all but impossible. This in turn, means that government not only becomes unresponsive, unable to solve problems at all, but even worse, becomes much more easily captured by whatever interest is benefiting from the status quo making it even harder to reform.
As public policy continues to deteriorate, it is no wonder that the American public opts for outsiders; individuals who claim that if x problem is not being taken care of it is simply because “Washington” does not want to. The cycle then begins anew leading either to frustration or apathy, deteriorating the process further. Meanwhile, Presidents—unable to deal with Congress—strike out on their own, driving the bureaucracy in wildly different paths every time the White House changes; disjointed policy becomes the norm.
If this was already evident in 2016, the Trump administration has only made it more obvious. For all the claims of the President, even with both houses under Republican control, his legislative accomplishments are few and far between. If the Democrats gain control of either chamber, his congressional agenda will be permanently stalled, as it would also have been had the US chosen Clinton in 2016.
Still, if deadlock under presidentialism has become a major headache in the American system, an even more serious problem is the removal of the executive. Using any non-electoral means to replace a President has always had the potential to cause trouble, but the same factors that have brought about gridlock make it so that the removal of an unfit President today will bring about a major constitutional crisis no matter how obviously incompetent or criminal the person might be. Take for instance the NY Times op-ed written by a senior official along with Fear, Bob Woodward’s new book which dominated the political conversation last week. If even half of what the writers describe is true, the United States is taking a gamble every day this President remains in office. In a parliamentary system, Trump would be removed by his own party with little objection—in the same way that Australia has done regularly since 2007 with multiple prime ministers. In this one, there are only two possibilities—impeachment or removal via the 25th amendment. In the case of the latter, however, it is unclear that it can be used with a President who is not obviously physically impaired and can fight back, especially since its success would depend on super-majorities in Congress. Regular impeachment, on the other hand, is basically impossible as long as the GOP holds any of the chambers in Congress, even if the majority of Republicans agreed the President was dangerously unfit. The reason is simple: their political incentives create a huge collective action problem. If the party acted forcefully and in concert, there would be some safety in numbers and perhaps could allow them to retain the White House as President Pence took over, but the coordination that would require cannot currently be mustered even for low stakes legislative strategies let alone for a maneuver so risky they might lose judges and other policies in their agendas, not to mention their own seats. In effect, this leaves all Republicans who think the executive unfit waiting for other Republicans to do something. Individual attempts, however, are impossible to sustain if one wants any type of immediate future in the party. Conservative stalwarts such as Jeff Flake suddenly become progressive liberals in the minds of Republican voters and are forced out; loyalty to Trump has become the only measure that matters.
The case for the Democrats is also not as straightforward as it might seem. For one thing, lacking the votes in the Senate might make the whole debacle a losing political proposition. But even if they succeeded in removal, a huge portion of the electorate would see the action as undemocratic and a soft coup regardless of the validity of the underlying claims. In their minds, everything that the President has claimed about the “deep state” would be legitimized leading to a growing resentment which is bound to have unpredictable and unhealthy consequences. The Democratic base, meanwhile, might not be as thankful as it might seem either. That is because unless the Vice-President was also impeached, he would be elevated to the Presidency and might prove a much more competent executive prolonging Republican control to 2024 and beyond. As uncertainty slowed down the Democrats eagerness for removal, they would face a similar collective action predicament to the Republicans.
Thus, despite having a mechanism to remove corrupt and unfit Presidents, the politics of the moment make it so the United States currently lacks one that would not create a major crisis with nearly as much downside as maintaining the executive in office.
Whatever one might think of Trump himself, there will be a time when the country needs to replace a Chamberlain for a Churchill. Americans often think of the Constitution as a semi-divine document that is far superior to others around the world, blinding them the pitfalls of the system. We have been lucky that our institutions have held when we have faced serious constitutional challenges. Let us hope our luck does not run out soon.