Why a Donald Trump presidency wouldn't quite be as terrible as we think it would be

By Lucas Karl Hahn.

I say this as someone who is not a fan of Donald Trump.

I prefer Democrats such as Bill Clinton and Cory Booker, and Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Marco Rubio. I think Trump is doing this as a self-promoting publicity stunt, and I personally think he is charging at windmills.

I believe a Donald Trump presidency wouldn't quite be as terrible as we think it would be. His bark is probably much worse than his bite; he is heavy on bombastic rhetoric but once in the White House he would probably be relatively tame. Candidates often say outlandish things and make unrealistic promises on the campaign trail. They are rarely able to deliver. Look at all that Obama wanted to do, and what he ended up with. Look at all the things Bush wanted to do, and what he got. He was shot down on Social Security reform, immigration reform, and other things. Bill Clinton wanted to re-organize the US healthcare system in 1993 but that accomplished nothing for him.

The US president is relatively weak compared to other heads of state and government. A prime minister is less restrained because he normally commands a majority in Parliament, or has a coalition backing him. If the prime minister and Parliament are the same party, they can get a lot of things done.

Not so in the United States. The president is elected by the Electoral College, where there are 535 Electors for each state. He isn't elected by a majority vote; it is a first-past-the-post system and you could have a president win the popular vote but lose the Electoral vote. There is no guarantee that he will get a legislative branch sympathetic to his ideas; the upper house consists of 100 members, each representing an entire state, elected for six-year terms, with one-third up for re-election every two years. The lower house consists of 435 members, each representing a district of about 700,000 people.

It's very likely that he would end up with a divided government.

Since 1968, the US president has enjoyed a majority in the Senate for 22.5 out of 48 years. He has enjoyed a majority in the House for merely 14 out of 48 years. He has only had control of both houses of Congress for 12.5 years, or about 25% of the time.

Americans seem to have a preference for divided government. That makes life difficult for the president, since he will have a hard time getting things done without Congress at his side. Clinton only could get things done by compromising with the Republicans, which moved him to the center, doing centrist things such as reducing the budget deficit and reforming welfare. Bush had support from Congress for slightly longer than half of his presidency, but he couldn't get Social Security reform passed in 2005, and spent much of his second term as a lame duck. Even when his party controlled Congress, they had some disagreements. Obama has been even more unfortunate; since losing the House in 2010 he has had great difficulty with getting his legislative agenda supported by Congress. He has been forced to use executive orders to get his way, which has alienated people.

To get legislation passed, both a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate must support it. This is higher for treaties, where a 2/3 supermajority is required for ratification. The president can veto legislation, but Congress can override his veto with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

Trump will have to negotiate with Congress, and that will mean not getting 100% of what he wants. It will certainly be interesting to see the man who wrote The Art of the Deal trying to get Congress to see things his way. It's like trying to herd cats. Good luck with that.

Trump has made a name for himself saying outlandish and bombastic things, such as saying Mexico sends rapists to the United States, wanting to make Mexico pay for a border wall (threatening retaliation if Mexico doesn't comply), and wanting to ban all Muslims from entry into the United States.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, for the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue), the United States Constitution restrains the chief executive. Also, the dispersion of power via the federal system (granting power to states and cities), a relatively decentralized system, and changing technology means that Trump will probably enjoy less power than a US president did 50 years ago.

Let's take the border wall. Trump threatened Mexico, saying that if Mexico does not pay for the wall, he will:

impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages;
increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them);
increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays);
increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and
increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico
The biggest threat, impounding remittance payments (which are an important source of capital for Mexico) is an empty threat. He can't stop money from trickling out of the country, especially in the Age of Bitcoin.

He also has threatened Mexico and China with trade policy, alleging that the two countries benefit at the expense of the United States. There may be some truth to the statement, but he is unlikely to get his way. Congress has control over trade policy, which is spelled out in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and to promote the general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

He would need Congress to support his trade policy ideas, such as a 35% tax on Mexican imports.

He can only accomplish things if he gets Congress to work with him, like Reagan and Clinton did. This is likely to move him to the center.

The one area where he does have a degree of autonomy is foreign policy/defense. I can only hope he will be a responsible commander-in-chief if elected. But I don't think his most unconventional ideas are likely to amount to much.