New evidence from The Pew Research Center (Feb. 14, 2025) is thought-provoking. Many partisan citizens report they are comfortable giving presidents more power when the president shares their political ideology – even while they would prefer to limit presidents who do not share their ideology.
We can’t have it both ways. Either we constrain presidents, or we do not. Suppose we do not. Each time political control of the White House changes parties, the new president will immediately purge the loyalists and policies from the last regime. The nation will be whipsawed between ideological poles. Businesses will be reluctant to make long-term plans that might bring better jobs and new strength to the country for fear of the next whipsaw policy changes. The stakes of winning or losing the White House will be much higher, meaning our distrust and dislike of our political opponents will only deepen. Political violence will become more common. Corruption will deepen: business leaders will be invited to offer huge bribes to secure policies they can live with.
The framers of the Constitution chose otherwise; they required a system of checks and balances through the separation and sharing of powers between Congress and the president, backed by the courts and the Constitution. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Federalist 51. (See our short course, Republic or Democracy.) There have been shifts over time in the operational balance of powers held by Congress and the president but, on the whole, each could check the other. (Learn how the power of the presidency changed over time and what Congress can and cannot do.)
It is straightforward for the Executive Office to bring complaints of Congressional overreach to the Supreme Court. The situation is more difficult in the case of presidential overreach. If enough members of Congress, in the House and Senate, agree that the Executive Office has exceeded or abused its powers, then it too can take its case to the Supreme Court. Such action is unlikely, however, when members of Congress are equally divided between those who seek help from the Court and those who do not.
The last line of defense against whipsaw politics, corruption, and chaos is a broad coalition – spanning each of the major parties – a coalition of voters, donors, political operatives, media owners, and media personalities. By working together, starting with the primaries, the share of legislators willing to enforce constitutional checks and balances could be increased enough to make a difference.
