Friday News Roundup — April 19, 2019: Notre-Dame as a Symbol; Democracy Is Resilient; and Pondering the Pardon Power, Alliteratively
Happy Friday from Washington, DC. It has been a funny kind of a week here in our nation’s capital, as most of the major players focused more on the news to come and less on the world going on around them. At this point, we have the version of Special Counsel Mueller’s report that will pass into the history books and many news outlets and politicos have spent the better part of the last 24 hours parsing every word and redaction. That does not mean, however, that we can really yet grasp what it all means. That will take weeks and months as we come to terms with what we have learned from the report and entire course of the investigation.
For our part, the policy team is zooming out a little this week. So often, we get caught up in the details of the weekly grind that we forget that the things that really matter rarely fit into the boxes we try to put them in. Maybe it is because it is Holy Week and the beginning of Passover, but we wanted to take this time to have some broader thoughts. In that vein, Dan cogitates about the fire that nearly consumed the Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris this week; Michael meditates on the nature of democracy and legitimacy when so many of us feel like our system struggles to provide the answers we seek; and Chris ruminates on the pardon power, what one political scientist recently called “the Chekhov’s gun of the American Constitution.” Whether you are spending this weekend on religious devotion, civic virtue, or some other good deeds, we want to sincerely thank you for taking a little time out of each week to spend with all of us at CSPC.
Why We Build — and Rebuild
Dan Mahaffee
Beyond the heartbreak of watching flames engulf the Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, it was striking to see how the attention of the world, for at least 24 hours, focused on the religious and civilizational symbolism of the 859-year old cathedral. For Catholics, the building is a hallowed house of worship; for all humanity, it is a stone sentinel marking centuries of French and European history.
Having endured for nearly a millennium, Notre-Dame is a reminder that there are things that we create to exist and endure beyond election cycles and quarterly earnings reports. In the case of Notre-Dame, it was built not only to serve as the seat of the Archbishop of Paris — hence the designation of “cathedral” — but also to inspire generations of worshippers and pilgrims of the promise of a world beyond this one.
Through centuries of French history, the cathedral would take on a new meaning as it endured revolution, revolt, and war to take on secular significance as a symbol of France. Beyond what it meant to France, Notre-Dame would take a greater meaning for us all.
In the 1969 BBC series “Civilisation,” Sir Kenneth Clark stood before Notre-Dame and said:
“What is civilization? I don’t know. I can’t define it in abstract terms, yet. But I think I can recognize it when I see it… And I am looking at it now.”
Edifices and institutions are the cornerstones of that still hazy concept of civilization, but they are not mean to remain static. Rather, they are part of a compact between generations: they are built to endure, as a gift to future generations, who, in turn, bear the responsibility for their maintenance and renewal to bequeath this gift and this responsibility to their descendants. Just as the masons and craftsmen of Notre-Dame built it to stand for centuries, statesmen and visionaries have built institutions to endure not only for their benefit, but also for generations beyond. In this sense, the Founders who crafted the Constitution and the statesmen who built a new vision for the world from the ashes of World War II are one in the same with those who laid the stones of Notre-Dame.
These institutions and edifices can fall into decay and disrepair if the generational compact is not upheld. Nor are they perfect, as they reflect the technological and cultural limitations contemporary to their creation. If they remain truly static, they cannot last. Therefore, the responsibility to future generations requires a careful balancing act. How do we build on what we are given, maintain it, and, if necessary, renew it, for the next generation?
Fundamentally, it requires vision and leadership. In the case of the U.S. Constitution, its original sin of slavery forced us into the Civil War and a struggle for civil rights that continues to this day. Yet, despite that, the values enshrined in that document and the institutions that it built remain the foundation for its continued existence.
Today, we live in an era of disposability and digital ephemera, which makes a site like Notre-Dame—or the endurance of our institutions and values even more remarkable. And, in a way, that makes the challenge to ensure they last for future generations even more arduous. Notre-Dame stands in stark contrast to the high-rise built by a real estate speculator to make a quick buck. A sustainable, prosperous economy does not come from the seeking to make that quick buck. Similarly, our valued national and international institutions are the opposite of the charismatic populist or thuggish authoritarian who promises immediate panaceas for their nation’s ills.
Notre-Dame will be rebuilt because it is more than just a building. Our institutions continue because they are more than just words on a document. By its very nature, nothing that offers a short-term fix will last. Only with a vision that ensures these gifts endure for future generations will. Perhaps, on Holy Week and Passover, a parable from the Talmud explains it best:
One day, [Honi the Wise One] was walking along the road when he saw a certain man planting a carob tree. Honi said to him: This tree, after how many years will it bear fruit? The man said to him: It will not produce fruit until seventy years have passed. Honi said to him: Is it obvious to you that you will live seventy years, that you expect to benefit from this tree? He said to him: That man himself found a world full of carob trees. Just as my ancestors planted for me, I too am planting for my descendants.
Democracy Around the World
Michael Stecher
One of the side effects of following the news regularly seems to be a feeling a helplessness. There are real problems in this world and, while they may be getting better in aggregate — and believe me, they are — at the level of our own human experience, the bad news tends to drown out the good. As citizens of a democratic state, that negativity feeds into our politics and echoes back to us. But we must not forget what a good thing a functioning democratic system is and, at this moment, those benefits are on display around the world. We are in the middle of a stretch of 2 months during which the democratic futures of 20% of the world’s population will be decided. In places where democracy appears fragile, we are seeing that its roots run deep. It may be messy and it may produce outcomes that we dislike, but democracy remains the best transmitter of legitimacy to governments and we should all be buoyed by its strength.
On Wednesday, Joko Widodo, the president of Indonesia, was reelected to a second five-year term. Indonesia is a country with serious problems: piracy remains a serious issue in the Straits of Malacca; it faces growing power from conservative religious movements and an insurgency from a network of homegrown and ISIS-affiliated terrorists; the country’s population, more than 10% of whom live below the poverty line, is spread across nearly 1,000 inhabited islands; and its politics is still infused with the remnants of the authoritarian system that only ended in 1998. In fact, Mr. Widodo’s opponent, Prabowo Subianto, who ran on an explicitly populist and anti-elite program, was the pre-1998 dictator’s son-in-law and was tied to the kidnapping of activists when he was a senior military leader. Despite this complicated situation, nearly two-thirds of Indonesians report that they are satisfied living in a democratic system and about the same have a positive outlook for the economy.
In India, the elections that will determine whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi is returned to power will take place in stages over the next six weeks. Nearly a billion people are eligible to take part in this election, which is a staggering number to contemplate. Modi is a divisive figure and he stands for reelection at a moment when Indians are divided about whether their system is serving them well. The party he leads is trying to make the idea of Indian culture “coterminous with Hindu culture,” but Indian politics is not that simple and roughly 20% of the country follows a different faith tradition. We will be watching over the next few weeks as 11 million election workers work to ensure that every eligible voter has the opportunity to cast a ballot; in a country roughly one-third the size of the United States, the law says that no voter be required to travel more than 2 kilometers to get to a polling place.
As we mentioned in our roundup two weeks ago, Turkey’s ruling AKP Party suffered a defeat in the municipal elections in Istanbul. It remains unclear whether the followers of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will accept the results. They formally requested a recount, which still found the opposition candidate the winner, and even called for the election to be rerun. Turkey’s democratic system is deeply threatened by Erdogan’s authoritarian impulses, but outright refusing to heed the call of the people would be a significant step towards the dissolution of the popular underpinnings of the Turkish Republic. In Istanbul, the opposition ran a campaign that tried to look past the divisions that Erdogan has so adroitly exploited during his time in power and focus on the very real economic problems that are facing the country.
We can only hope that President Erdogan accepts this result, not because we prefer one Turkish political party to another, but because, to quote a famous philosopher, “supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses” (and not from some farcical aquatic ceremony). Democracy works because no outcomes are permanent and all politicians need to be prepared for the voters to repudiate their agendas. A good functioning democratic system encourages compromise and is designed to produce outcomes that most people consider good enough. This is what protesters are marching and advocating for in Caracas, Algiers, and Khartoum. They want it because they have seen for themselves what happens when a ruling elite becomes entrenched and refuses to change course. It is not necessarily that democratic systems always produce better outcomes, but, because they hear from the people they are meant to be serving about how their policies are doing, they can see when they are doing poorly and have the incentives to change course. Each citizen may be unhappy at one policy or another, but the continuation of the system ensures that the body politic as a whole can ride out the troubles of the moment. We may no longer be believers in Francis Fukuyama’s argument that there remained no more ideological challengers to liberal, democratic politics, but as we look across the span of the world at people exercising their democratic rights, we can hope that we might be getting there.
Parsing Presidential Powers, Particularly Problematic Pardons
Chris Condon
Presidential pardons have historically been a source of controversy surrounding the executive branch. From Andrew Johnson’s pardon of southern traitors to Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon, presidents have utilized their powers at various points to accomplish everything from advancing policy goals to healing national wounds. This week, new controversy arose regarding pardons, this time relating to their potential use by President Trump. While many have reacted to the president’s alleged willingness to pardon officials carrying out legally dubious policy with shock and indignation, this week’s story is fairly mundane compared to uses of presidential power in the past.
The action by President Trump in question is his alleged promise to a Customs and Border Patrol official (now Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan) that he would be pardoned if convicted of illegally barring asylum seekers from the country. Instructing a federal official to disobey federal law in the discharge of their duties would arguably make the president criminally culpable, and would at the very least be an impeachable offense. Perhaps most importantly, he would be acting in direct violation of the Constitution under Article II Section 3, which states that “[the president] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” As with many accusations levelled against the president, however, there is no proof of the alleged wrongdoing and a miniscule likelihood that any will be discovered.
While one may be outraged at even the thought of President Trump utilizing the pardon power to enforce his strict vision of immigration law, it is unsurprising to see a president act in this way. Even Thomas Jefferson pardoned many of those sentenced under the Sedition Act for speaking out against his main political rival, John Adams, the first instance of a president using pardons as a policy tool. Likewise, President Johnson pardoned all former confederates on Christmas Day in 1868, sparking outrage from Republicans in Congress who felt that they deserved to be punished for levying war against the United States. Warren Harding also commuted the sentences of many convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917, believing that the Wilson administration’s policy was too harsh on those simply speaking out against American Involvement in the First World War (including socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs).
Some may say that the above examples are not truly analogous, because they provided no direct benefit to each president or their administration as the alleged action of Mr. Trump would have. This brings us to the case of Bill Clinton, whose questionable use of the presidential pardon is perhaps most famous. Roger Clinton Jr., the president’s brother, was pardoned for possession of cocaine for little reason other than the fact that he was related to President Clinton. Marc Rich and Pincus Green, two business partners who fled the country after being indicted for tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran, were pardoned after Mr. Rich’s spouse made sizeable donations to both the Democratic Party and the Clinton Foundation. While there is no proof that the two events were connected, they are certainly germane to the potential use of the pardon power for gain by the President of the United States.
The power of the president to grant a total pardon for any reason is monarchical in nature. Like any absolute power, it is unsurprising that one person entrusted with it is wont to abuse it for personal or political gain. When the founders framed the Constitution, they looked to a period under the Articles of Confederation with little executive authority to inform their creation of a presidency with limited monarchical abilities such as that of the pardon. In Federalist 74, Alexander Hamilton reinforces this view by outlining his belief that if a central figure did not have the ability to exercise mercy in the event of an unfortunate conviction wrought by the justice system, the law would become cruel and its moral compass ossified. It is no secret that Hamilton was an enthusiastic fan of an imperial presidency, and he perhaps could not foresee the abuses that would eventually occur in such an arrangement. As Lord Acton famously said, “[p]ower tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
In an era of endless wars begun through executive fiat and questionable emergency declarations used to fund endeavors not authorized by Congress, it is folly to act as if pardon abuses are unprecedented. In fact, abuses throughout history have run rampant, which should be an indicator of how unchecked presidential powers tend to be utilized. Rather than shaking the fist at the president’s mention of a power that the is expressly presented in Article II, let us use the runaway pardon as an example. Do not trust the presidency, no matter the party, with absolute power. If we continue to do so, we will be corrupted absolutely.
Stories You May Have Missed
No AOC On WWW? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Scales Down Social Media
Alec Mancini
Much attention has been generated by freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) use of social media. Online, her fans, and detractors, can find the Representative promoting her policies, engaging in debates, or even cooking. AOC, as she is referred to, has come to be recognized as someone who has used social media platforms in a savvy manner that has raised her profile in the national consciousness. Despite this, AOC announced this week that she has suspended her personal Facebook account and will reduce her use of all social media platforms, describing social media as a “public health risk” that can result in “increased isolation, depression, anxiety, addiction, and escapism”. She will remain on Twitter, however.
Kim Jong Un to Meet with Putin
Recently, the warming trend in relations between the United States and North Korea have cooled. Russia now seemingly seeks to fill the vacuum, with Russian President Vladimir Putin announcing this week a summit that will take place between himself and Kim Jong Un. Occurring in the wake of renewed weapons testing by the hermit kingdom, the summit is likely an attempt by Russia to assert itself as a global power, and a counterbalance to the United States. Although Russia has signed onto punitive U.N. measures against North Korea in the past, Kim Jong Un will likely seek Putin’s assistance with sanctions relief in the future.
Washington State Launches Renewable Energy Plan
Multiple cities and states have recently passed goals to achieve 100% clean electricity, meaning all electricity produced with renewable energy. This week, the Washington state legislature passed their own, detailing a strategy to be 100% carbon neutral by 2030. In pursuance of this goal, the state will abandon coal as a source of electricity by 2025, and all of their power will come from “non-emitting electric generation and electricity from renewable resources” when the plan is fully implemented. The last 20% can be accounted for by paying a carbon tax-like penalty, using carbon vouchers (verifying that someone else has offset your carbon use with clean energy), or ETPs (“projects that provide energy-related goods and services other than electricity generation and result in a reduction of fossil fuel consumption and a reduction of GHG emissions, while providing benefits to the customers of a utility.”)
Scientists Create Zombie Pig Brains, in News Story that Is Real and Not Scrolling across the Bottom of the Screen in the Opening Scene of a Horror Movie
Science made a stunning advance this week when scientists at Yale University managed to partially reanimate the brain of a pig that had been dead for hours. Although scientists have been able to remove viable cells from a dead brain to study them for years, cells lose their functionality when removed from the brain’s precise structure. What scientists at Yale have now done is create a mechanism to supply these viable cells with the materials necessary for life while still in the brain (oxygen, nutrients, etc.), allowing parts of the brain of a deceased organism to continue functioning. This advance has raised questions from ethicists, who ponder the future implications of reviving parts of the brain.
The views expressed by contributors are theirs and not the view of CSPC.
