Are we witnessing a process of weakening political parties? If so, how does this affect democracy? Is there area for a political center? Has the United States become a country marked by populism? And what future awaits Argentina under president Javier Milei? Leszek Jażdżewski talks to Samuel Issacharoff, prof. of constitutional law at the NYU Law Department. He is simply a leading figure in investigation on democracy, constitutions and courts, author of the book Fragile Democrats: Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional Courts (Kruche Democracy: Disputes over power in the era of constitutional tribunals), and more late "Democracy Unmoored: Populism and the Corruption of Popular Sovereignty" (Democracy without anchoring: {opulism and corruption of the sovereignty of the people). He is besides a leading figure in procedures and complex litigation, serving as rapporteur for the American Law Institute’s Principles of Aggregate Litigation. He served as elder legal advisor during Barack Obama's presidential campaigns and has many years of experience as an appeal lawyer in American courts. He is simply a associate of the American Academy of Arts and Science.
Leszek Jażdżewski (LJ): I will start with a very simple question. Is government closure government shutdown) Did it affect you in the United States? What is the situation today?
Samuel Issacharoff (SI): In the United States, this does not affect our regular lives. Most basic government services are inactive in operation. Most people approach this in coolness due to the fact that we are dealing with a immense polarisation of our policy and a fragmentation of political power, which means that parties are not truly able to do anything.
This is most likely the 3rd closure of the administration in the last 5 years and it has been going on for any time. Politicians shout at each another for a minute and usually the case is solved. However, this time the difference is that it is not known what the Trump administration will do as a result. The biggest unknown in American politics is presently uncertainty about the president's behavior.
LJ: What are the consequences of the fresh execution of Charlie Kirk? How did this event affect freedom of speech? What is the current situation? Has the discussion moved on to fresh topics? Is it now more hard to talk out openly against president Donald Trump and the right?
SI: all day there are no restrictions on freedom of speech. It's not like people are afraid of who they're talking to, or be careful in their conversations. We are not surviving in Poland before 1989, this is not the scenario.
When Kirk was killed, a sense of fear arose: “What if it was our Reichstag fire? What if this event becomes an excuse to reduce civilian liberties and large mobilisation?" But that did not happen.
Interestingly, this has not happened due to the fact that most American presidents (or, in fact, all of them so far) in the face of specified a terrible event, specified as a public killing, can emergence above this situation and effort to be leaders of the full nation. On the another hand, the reaction of the present administration was to fuel the emotions immediately, so that the event was as party-like as possible. However, this did not seem effective. It is not that no effort has been made or that there have been real violations of freedom of speech, but they have taken more subtle forms.
I am more afraid about the indirect attacks on independent media, the administration's efforts to defame and affect its opponents in court proceedings, specified as the prosecution of erstwhile FBI manager James Comey and the mobilisation of the Justice Department to conduct various investigations. I do not think that the main nonsubjective of this administration's clearly repressive tendencies is to usage the old 20th century methods of "putting everyone in jail" and suppressing freedom of speech. Rather, it is the 21st-century version of “must simply exhaust them” of endless court proceedings against them.
I am a very good friend of the leading Polish intellectual in the field of law, prof. Wojciech Sadurski. During the first word of the Law and Justice Government in Poland, he was the subject of 5 libel lawsuits, 1 or 2 of which were criminal. It's the kind of action that can kill a man. It's not about arresting members of the opposition organization and throwing them in jail. Trump says he wants to do it, but so far there's not much evidence.
LJ: You erstwhile wrote that populism is simply a democratic government with weak institutions. It seems that behind the erstwhile Trump administration American institutions were strong adequate to survive. Is it the same today? Should we call the United States a populist country, or is it just a country with a populist president? What changed during Trump's second term?
SI: Trump's second word is completely different in many ways. Firstly, institutions are weaker. The collapse of our legislature is almost complete and that is the most disturbing. Our political parties are not functioning properly. This is terrible, due to the fact that this represents a serious regulation on the functioning of the political process. That is why American democracy is threatened more than always before – surely in my life and possibly since the civilian War. But anything's inactive possible, so we'll see.
Undoubtedly, erstwhile Trump's second administration took power, it tried to consolidate the imagination of executive power, which is incredibly strong, unilateral and highly dangerous to our structures and the way our government operates. 1 difference is, however, that Trump's second administration is, interestingly, more legalistic than the first.
Trump's first administration took over and stated: "We want to ban Muslims from entering the United States just due to the fact that the president does not like them or fears terrorism," and these akin statements. The court has repeatedly rejected the President's various initiatives. This time the Trump administration invented bizarre laws (some of them very old) that gave the president vaguely defined extraordinary powers. In this way, they tried to hide their actions under the cloak of these very laws. They say they're acting in accordance with the law.
And so, for example, we have a bill from 1798, erstwhile the alleged “quasi-war” with France first happened. Basically, it says that since the French kidnap our merchant sailors at sea and force them to service in the French Navy, we authorize our ships to argue it. It was a law on hostile foreigners, which empowered certain actions to be taken. In 1798, of course, there was no anticipation of communication between Washington and a given ship. Therefore, the president had the right to issue orders to defend the American commercial fleet. This law is inactive in force, and it is on it that president Trump bases his power of deportation, attacks on boats in open waters or open global waters. This is simply a very problematic issue.
We besides have another bill, from 1977, introduced during the arabian oil embargo, which says that the president can act with emergency powers if there is simply a crisis in energy supply. Trump uses this as an excuse to introduce unilateral duties. No president has always done this before. But there is appearance of legality, which makes it much harder to argue it. The easiest way to respond to this would be to say by Congress: “This is not what we meant in 1798. That is not what we meant in 1977." Unfortunately, our legislature is actually more diverse.
It is notable that president Trump is doing what presidents have done during the last 4 or 5 word but on a scale that is unimaginable. It's very hard for our presidents to rule. The main reason for this is the dissolution of political parties, which means that legislature consists of 100 people in the legislature and 435 in the home of Representatives, which no 1 can coordinate. They should be mobilized, driven. And this is very difficult.
They are not controlled by nominations or funding. You can't force them to vote on a certain line. This is so mostly dysfunctional. Therefore, each president relied more on the alleged "executive regulations" than on legislation. This is simply a constant trend where we see a fall in the level of government over time. We besides see an increase in the number of implementing regulations.
One of the measures we apply is what was done during the first 100 days of the presidency, as it was a large initiative by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. We assessed all our presidents on the basis of their first 100 days. Roosevelt in the first 100 days led to the adoption of about 80 fresh legislation. It was the celebrated fresh Deal, which was an amazing achievement. No 1 has always done anything like this before. In time this number fell. In principle, during the last 4 or 5 presidential terms before Trump's second term, ten, 12 fresh acts were passed, something in this regard.
The first 100 days we call "the President's honeymoon" during which legislature is willing to give the fresh president a credit. We can besides measurement the number of decrees issued in the first 100 days. Roosevelt spent rather quite a few them, but usually it's four, six, eight, possibly twelve. During the first 100 days of his second term, Trump passed 5 legal acts, only 1 of which was a real bill draft. By comparison, he issued 145 decrees in his first 100 days. That's more than Biden, Obama, and Bush combined.
Since Trump took office, we have observed an avalanche of decrees which seem to be based on unclear passages of old legislation. This was well prepared, and in this way he is ruling. legislature is not part of his program. He has to address him only on the nomination – and since he controls the Senate, no senator will object to him for fear of losing his position. president Trump needs them to pass the budget, but he can besides regulation executive decrees until the courts decide otherwise.
LJ: What are the deeper reasons why individual like Donald Trump could take control of the Republican organization and become president? How did this happen in American politics?
SI: In a sense, the question is: why didn't this happen before? due to the fact that in political explanation we always knew that in all democracy there was a hazard of a demagogue. Tukidydes described it in the Peloponnesian Wars. Hobbes wrote that democracy is ruled by demagogues, that is, people who can influence masses with their rhetoric. Donald Trump was a star of the tv reality show, a character known for our tabloids and a kind of cultural icon of fresh York City.
So why didn't it happen before? The reason is that, for most of our history, like all unchangeable democracies, we had comparatively well-functioning political parties that nominated funded candidates and then required them to cooperate in joint efforts after joining Parliament.
Let me give you an example for comparison. Look at Poland. We have a Citizens' Coalition that won the last parliamentary elections and promised a 100 different things that it intended to achieve. Until now, she has introduced only 5 of them in the form of draft laws. How is that possible? How can you neglect to keep your electoral promises? The answer is that as shortly as the election ended, the coalition fell apart. So you never had an organic political party.
One of the difficulties in Poland is that the Law and Justice managed to last as a real political party. It presently has a right-hand opposition, but there are no real political parties that could organise a real policy. We have the same situation in the States. You can't build a coalition. Biden succeeded, but it took him 2 years to pass a stimulus bill about which the organization was in agreement to do so. But then there was a dispute between the right and the left in the Democratic organization and he failed to do so.
Every year, Republicans run for election with the slogan of abolishing Obamacare. They want to change the wellness care system. It's not clear what they want in return, but let's presume that's what they want. However, they have never presented a bill on this issue due to the fact that they do not have a coherent organization that could say, “Okay, here is our programme.” As a result, they have a organization that's just a blow job. And then there's a popular, charismatic figure who takes control.
As I compose in my book, the same almost happened on the Democratic side in 2016, erstwhile Bernie Sanders, a socialist senator from the state of Vermont who is not even a associate of the Democratic Party, almost won the nomination. In 2016, there was almost a clash between Donald Trump (until late non-member of the Republican Party) and Bernie Sanders (still not a associate of the Democratic Party). This is our political breakdown.
LJ: Is the claim of a median voter, namely the acquisition of a political center, which has always been a way to win elections and rule, inactive applicable? Is there even a marketplace for a predictable central policy?
SI: I do not think so, due to the fact that if we look at this issue purely theoretically, then in order to win the election, we request to get over 50% of the vote in the constituency. We have one-mandate districts. Elections in Poland are more complicated due to proportional representation, but nevertheless the basic rule is that in order to rule, you request to get 50% of the vote and a small more. How, then, can we do this?
Well, all we know about each country is that voters are fundamentally in agreement with what we call "normal distribution". This means that the extremes are tiny and the majority of the votes are centered. That's why we request to position ourselves where the voters are.
In the United States, there erstwhile was a very celebrated man, John Dillinger, who was active in bank robberies. erstwhile people asked him why he was doing it, he replied, “For there is money.” Politicians are akin to John Dillinger in this regard. They should go where the “money” is, where the majority of the vote is. This is how the mediaeval voter claims that erstwhile elections are coming, you should effort to take a position in this perfect mediate to get as many votes as possible. There are many theories that explain why this is the case.
Currently the parties are very far apart, and the selection of candidates is no longer held as part of a organization apparatus, but in organization clubs and increasingly in the primary process. In the primary in the United States – and unfortunately this is besides duplicated in organization institutions in Europe – utmost activists dominate. As a result, in the primary in the Republican Party, attendance may be 10% of voters, possibly less, but they will be the most ardent voters.
The same thing is happening on the Democrats' side, with the difference that staunch supporters are more left-wing. This means that candidates are so far apart that there is no anticipation of returning to the centre – otherwise their candidacy will be contested from within, by their activist groups. Therefore, both parties are dependent on the most utmost environments.
Let us look at a place where there is not even a threat of a crucial second circular of elections – it is now fresh York. We have a mayoral candidate who will almost surely win, who is very far to the left from the views of the majority of the fresh York residents and who has views that put him at odds with the full national political spectrum. This means that fresh York will elect a very left-wing mayor, which will be a mobilisation tool for the right in the Republican organization across the country.
In this light, the median voters seem to be like Christmas in a household home. It's just a good memory.
LJ: How should liberals or mainstream politics respond to populist nationalism? Should there be a confrontation or an effort to redefin the current political landscape? Do you see any way out of this?
SI: I see an exit, but I don't know what it'll look like. I'll answer in 2 parts. Firstly, I believe that the best way would be to have unchangeable political parties. Unfortunately, no democracy presently exists. This means that we are in a reorganization period.
I grew up in a period of cold war and post-war planet order in the late 20th century. erstwhile I hear that elections are held in France without Gaulllists and socialists, erstwhile I hear that the Labour organization and Tories in the UK together have less votes than any independent party, this is an unthinkable situation for me. erstwhile I hear that AfD will most likely get the most votes in the next circular of elections, it's a planet completely alien to me.
We are in a period of change and it is obvious. Therefore, organization form is truly acceptable. In part, we have social media, we have ways of raising funds on the net that bypass conventional channels. All these things are disrupting the order so far.
However, I would like to look at this from a different perspective. Why has populist nationalism become so popular? I think that a major reason is the failure of conventional parties, which have not dealt with the problems of voters, so that European parties were afraid to address the issue of migration, which is crucial to society in the United States. Biden's administration allowed an uncontrollable influx of 2 million people across the confederate border in a very short time and reacted to an effort to supply them with social services and another benefits, which, of course, resulted in attracting even more people. Trump went against it and hit a delicate point in society.
The populists besides incite the moods of economical uncertainty that affect many working classes in democratic countries. There was a failure in this area. The Social Democratic Left, or Democratic organization in the United States, was besides focused on cultural issues that do not seem to have any relevance to the everyday lives of average people. Meanwhile, conservative, Christian-democratic parties have become besides dependent on large economical operators, large enterprises and dominant economical players.
As a result, average people in our country feel that no 1 listens to them, that they have no 1 to turn to. They do not want to worry about their statements for fear of offending others and do not want to be at the point where the only question is: how to attract more large capital? They want to hear about their own lives. As long as the centrist parties, whatever they are – the political centre or whatever they are regrouping now – do not address these issues, we will proceed to give the field to the populists.
LJ: Let's end our conversation in Argentina, where you come from. How do you view Javier Milei's presidency and Argentina present in terms of economy and political system?
SI: That is not conclusive. A 100 years ago, Argentina was 1 of the 5 richest countries in the world. Walking around Buenos Aires today, you can see what was built a 100 years ago.
During planet War II, Argentina was neutral and achieved spectacular economical successes. However, it was then that the position of the Argentine version of populists, or platformists, was established. They had the thought of making everyone dependent on the state as much as possible and suppressing entrepreneurship as possible. This approach resulted in improving the standard of human life. wellness care and grants have been provided.
A akin situation besides occurred in Poland during the regulation of the Law and Justice and the additives which they were able to introduce, and which were very crucial to guarantee their support, actual public support. The problem is that you should be able to afford it. And Argentina was never able to afford it at the level promised by the platformists. That's why they printed the money.
I lived in Argentina. The last time was 1984. Inflation was at the time 1200% per year. Lived day by day, watching money lose its value. As a result, everyone's life turned into a grim game.
Milei appeared, and his opponent was Finance Minister of the last government of the platformists, who managed to bring inflation to 150% per year. You can't vote for that. It's death to the country. regular focus on economical security, up to the level “What should I do with the fewer pesos I have in my pocket? I must print them as shortly as possible, due to the fact that next day they will be worthless" weakens the moral soul of society. This is simply a terrible situation. And so Milei broke the spine of inflation.
Unfortunately, Milei has no part of a democratic cut. He has an autocrat temperament, somewhat softened by the fact that he is an intellectual and economist – individual who thinks in a broader perspective. In this respect, he does not match Donald Trump. So I don't know what's going to happen.
Milei never created a political party. There is no support in Congress, but he had the advantage that legislature shared due to the fact that the political parties in Argentina are in even worse form than in the United States (or Poland). Therefore, the situation is presently unclear. However, if he succeeds in stabilising the economy, people will give him the credit due to the fact that – although it seems absurd – erstwhile people's regular economical safety is threatened and they feel that nothing works in this country, then they scope for demagogues.
This is what we see around the planet with the increasing popularity of populists. And since we inactive have a Europe of the 20th century in mind, there is simply a fear that populists will be the way to much worse forms of repressive regimes.
Podcast is besides available on platforms Sound, Apple Podcast, Stitcher and Spotify
Dr. Olga Łabendowicz translated from English
Read English at 4liberty.eu
