While I
firmly believe that the best way to save our democracy from Donald Trump is to make in maximally unpopular before he consolidates power, there is simply no denying that this method would be a whole lot more effective if we had a parliamentary system.
This particularly came to my mind after
James Carville predicted the administration would suffer a "massive collapse" within 30 days. The first and most obvious question to ask is what does that mean? Does it mean that he will not be able to get Congress to pass a budget? That Trump's popularity will collapse? Or that his government will become dysfunctional to the point of being completely non-functional? Any of those things seems reasonably plausible, and all of them at once are not altogether implausible.
But the next and also obvious question is, then what?
In a parliamentary system the answer would be simple. The cabinet could toss Trump out and choose a new Prime Minister. And a new one if that one failed. And, ultimately, if worst came to worst and it could not form a stable government, it could call new elections.
But a presidential system does not have that option. No matter how ineffectual or unpopular the President, there is no way to hold a new election until the fixed date. If worst absolutely comes to worst, the Cabinet can invoke the 25th Amendment and declare the President unable to serve. Or the House can impeach and the Senate remove. Neither option has ever been used in our history. And either way, JD Vance would become the new President. Our system leaves no other option.
How bad would it have to be? And then what?
Parliamentary system
In a parliamentary system, as I understand it, a serious collapse in popularity and pushing for measures opposed by most of the cabinet would be sufficient. For instance, if Trump's tariffs sufficiently damage the economy and Elon Musk seriously impairs government function and if this were to hurt Trump's popularity even among the MAGA faithful, he could be replaced. Presumably the foreign minister would be next in line, i.e Marco Rubio. We can imagine that Rubio would kick Musk to the curb, both because of Musk's unpopularity and because he would be a clear threat to Rubio's own power, and tell the Cabinet to salvage as much of their department functions as they could. I would expect Prime Minister Rubio's main other change to be in foreign policy. I would expect him to work at unwinding the trade war to boost the economy, drop Trump's senseless belligerence toward Canada, Greenland, and Panama (no real support for that), quietly resume aid to Ukraine, and work on mending relations with Europe. I think that Rubio's hawkish instincts have not really left him, just been suppressed.
I would expect Prime Minister Rubio to continue Trump's general anti-immigration policy, which seems broadly popular, perhaps (canny Floridian that he is) making an exception for Cubans and Venezuelans in denying Temporary Protected Status. I would also expect him to continue Trump's anti-DEI and anti-trans policies, both generally popular, though in a less heavy-handed manner. I would expect him to fire RFK, Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services and replace him, perhaps, with Bill Cassidy (in a parliamentary system, cabinet ministers are also members of the legislature).
He might even fire Pete Hegseth as unqualified and of dubious loyalty and replace him with, say, Joni Ernst. And maybe even Kash Patel and Dan Bongino from the FBI, replacing them with law enforcement professionals from outside the agency with impeccable credentials, solid conservative backgrounds, and no political involvement. He would direct them to regain respect for the agency by focusing on border issues like drugs and human trafficking and avoiding controversial matters. He would direct them not to prosecute any Republican office holder or candidate, or right wing donor or influencer unless the very online right was prepared to condone the action. (Think
Dennis Hastert). Prosecution of Democratic office holders or candidates or left wing donors or influencers was to be done only if there was a very strong case and all rules about sensitive matters were strictly followed. In other words, I would expect a Prime Minister Rubio to weaponize government to protect friends but not to punish foes.
Finally, I would expect Prime Minister Rubio to be a captive of Republican dogma, which says that taxes can never be increased (except for import taxes, now) and to find it just about impossible to pass a budget. And inability to pass a budget just might lead to a new round of elections with Democrats winning.
Twenty-Fifth Amendment if Trump is truly incapacitated
The
Twenty-Fifth Amendment provides that if a President is unable to discharge his duties, the Vice President and a majority of his Cabinet can remove him and place the Vice President in charge until the disability ends. If the President says that he is able to resume his duties, he may resume unless two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to remove him. In other words, it is not intended as a mechanism for deposing a President against his will except in the most extreme circumstances. This was seriously considered after Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election. Some people believe it should have been invoked in light of Biden's cognitive decline.
Certainly if Trump were to have a truly incapacitating stroke, invoking the 25th Amendment should not pose any problem. JD Vance would take over -- just as authoritarian as Trump, but a lot smarter and better disciplined. If such a thing were to happen, I would expect Vance to move away from some of Trump's more bizarre foreign policy behavior. Presumably he would drop talk of annexing Canada or Greenland, things there is no appetite for in this country, and to cut some sort of favorable deal with Panama on the canal. But I would not expect him to change Trump's pro-Russia, anti-Europe, anti-Ukraine policy.
I would expect Vance to wind down the tariffs and step up bird flu vaccines in the general belief that he has a better understanding than Trump of Rule # 1 of Smart Authoritarians -- save the unpopular stuff until after you have consolidated complete power -- and also because he has a better understanding than Trump of what is unpopular. I would also expect him to put pressure on Musk to declare mission accomplished, partly for the same reason, partly because he would fear Musk's power as a threat to his own, but mostly because Musk smashing the government would interfere with his plans to weaponize it. And, naturally, I would expect Vance to continue Trump's anti-immigration, and DEI, and anti-trans policies in all their glory. And to have the chronic Republican problem -- taxes can never be cut, but the level of spending Republicans want can never be done without breaking Rule #1 of Smart Authoritarians.
Twenty-Fifth Amendment to force Trump out
The 2th Amendment is really not intended to depose a President against his will, but it is (theoretically) not impossible. That thought has occurred to me for some time. What if Trump wigs out so badly that it is clear to everyone around him that he should not be trusted with power, but he is still well enough to assert himself as capable of governing? Could the 25th Amendment come into play?
My thought on that is that is possible, but (1) Trump would have to become extremely unpopular first, and (2) the flip-out would have to be so public that even supporters would have to admit that Trump had passed his sell-by date.
Of course, it is highly plausible that if Trump wigs out that badly, it would be preceded by behavior so erratic and damaging as to make him highly unpopular. Given the intensity of his supporters, that would have to be very unpopular indeed. At the time Nixon resigned, his approval rating had fallen to 24%. But 24% of the US population is still a lot of people. New reporters of the time had no difficulty making safaris into Nixon country and talking to supporters. Many Republicans who contributed to forcing Nixon out did so at the cost of their future careers. Nixon never inspired the same sort of fanatical devotion as Trump, who keeps Republicans in Congress in line with the threat of actual physical violence by deranged supporters. That being the case, I think his approval would have to fall well below 24% before he could be forced out by the 25th Amendment.
I will also add that, although theoretically under the 25th Amendment, any Cabinet majority is sufficient, as a practical matter it would have to include the head of all the "power ministries" -- Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security -- to ensure that if Trump refused to go the "deep state" could be counted on to remove him by force. All these leaders are staunch Trumpists. That would mean he would have to be very unpopular and very erratic indeed.
Still, between the time Trump named his eight potential candidates for Vice President and when he chose Vance, I had fantasies on this score. Those fantasies involved him picking Doug Burgum, who seemed like a decent enough guy who was just telling politically expedient lies. I imagined Trump going all-in with tariffs and budget-busting tax cuts. The tariffs would be an adverse supply shock that produced stagflation -- rising prices combined with falling growth. The gaping deficits would send interest rates up, with a predictable squeeze on the economy. Trump would pressure the Fed to lower interest rates to let the economy grow. Chairman Jerome Powell would refuse, learning the lessons of the '70's -- that lowering interest rates to meet an adverse supply shock can set off an inflationary spiral. Trump would grumble but bide his time. Powell's term would expire in May, 2026. Trump would wait and then appoint a partisan hack who would lower interest rates, setting off an inflationary spiral.
Still the November elections would be only six months later, before the inflationary spiral would make itself fully felt. Still, the tariffs would be painful enough for Democrats to win both house. After the midterms, inflation would keep growing and Trump would respond by doing what many people, including supporters, rightly condemned when Kamala Harris proposed it -- impose price control. The effect would be predictable -- empty shelves, long lines, and rationing. Rather than admit he had made a mistake, Trump would double down, abandoning attempts at weaponizing the DOJ and regulatory agencies against opponents and instead going after businesses for alleged price gouging. This, in turn, would lead many to challenge the Administration's actions as unconstitutional and the Supreme Court, whole-hearted economic royalists that they were, agreeing. It would also lead to serious cracks within the Administration as many people saw such actions as going against their economic royalist principles.
My fantasy culminated in Trump wigging out so badly that his Cabinet saw no choice but to toss him aside. I imagined Burgum, who seemed like a basically honorable guy, taking over. In power, he would stop the investigations for price gouging, work to wind down the tariffs, and even encourage the Fed to tighten to break the inflationary spiral. But he would still be captive of Republican dogma which forbids any tax increase and thus be unable to close the deficits that were driving much of the problem. Democrats would win in 2028, bit the bullet, and raise taxes. It would be unpopular enough to cost them the midterms, but ultimately right the economy and lead them to victory in 2032.
Could it happen? Maybe. Trump has shown some flexibility in willingness to reverse himself when his actions prove unpopular and so far has rejected the sort of doubling-down in my imaginary scenario. But already he is talking about price gouging for eggs. And, of course, he has sought to protect himself from ouster by picking JD Vance as his Vice President.
Impeachment
Three words on impeachment. Ain't gonna happen. Successful impeachment would require two-thirds of the Senate to conclude that Trump had not just passed his sell-by date, but had engaged in serious misconduct. I will happily concede that he has probably committed a whole stack of impeachable offenses by now, but you know that no Senate Republican is willing to say so. And, again, it would require enough splits within the Administration that we could be confident that if Trump refuses to leave the Deep State will put him out. And besides, he has Vance to make him impeachment-proof.
I suppose maybe if Starlink severed its Ukrainian connections and Russians overran the entire country and threatened to invade Poland and Romania and Trump said fine, AND Russian malware infected our systems and there were multiple cyber attacks and Trump still refused to do anything AND tariffs tanked the economy AND there were massive cuts to Medicaid and rural hospitals all over the country failed as a result AND the immigration crackdown finally started in earnest and farm communities all over the country saw their main business shut down with predictable and effects on food prices and Texas learned why deporting half the construction force is not a good idea AND measles broke out all over the country and even polio made a comeback while Trump vowed to defund every school with a vaccine mandate AND putting Musk's company in charge of air traffic control led to massive confusion and congestion at airports and led to more commercial plane crashes AND mass firings at Social Security led to payments not going out AND Trump tried to distract from these problems by massing troops on the border to prepare to invade Canada AND credible evidence emerged that Trump was really a Russian agent -- well, maybe.
And hell, if it got that bad even Vance might get religion for a second time and decide that maybe this isn't such a good idea. But thus far Trump has shown some degree of flexibility and willingness to backtrack when something proves unpopular enough, so this scenario still seems most unlikely.
