FDR

Springwood is a waste of time

From our UK edition

Springwood, set in June 1939, looks at a series of tricky meetings between the American president FDR and George VI at the Roosevelts’ family retreat in upstate New York. George and Queen Elizabeth are guests at the poky old house and although they complain to each other about their sleeping quarters they hide their dismay from their hosts. The writer-director, Richard Nelson, evidently despises the main characters apart from FDR (Robert Lindsay) who comes across as a genial old buffer addicted to whisky. The dialogue is divided into easy-to-handle segments. First, we get the history bit. FDR tells George that the US ought to join Britain in the coming war but pro-German sentiment is very strong and the majority of Americans may support Hitler. Then we get the therapy bit.

The case for the administrative state

By dismantling the Deep State, Donald Trump may inadvertently have undermined his own claim to rule. A chain of unintended consequences is visible in the Supreme Court case Trump vs Slaughter, due to be decided this month. It began with Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in the early days of his second term. She sued, federal judges backed her and Trump sued back. He asserted the right to fire anyone he wants. Trump’s view is that the president is boss of the whole executive branch – there can no longer be bureaucrats and regulatory boards with special status and guarantees against firing. Americans get to vote for the people who rule them. In that sense, Trump has been trying to make the country more democratic.

The Wall Street Crash never ceases to fascinate

From our UK edition

When Winston Churchill dined with the crème de la crème of American finance in New York on 28 October 1929, a facetious toast was made to ‘friends and former millionaires’. Despite a 13 per cent drop in the Dow after another day of market turmoil, the assembled banking titans felt they wouldn’t just survive the maelstrom, they would make more money from it. Churchill, whose finances were perennially chaotic, had caught stock market fever and lost today’s equivalent of almost $1.5 million. On returning to England, he declared the Wall Street crash ‘only a passing episode in the march of a valiant and serviceable people’. In the end, US stocks fell almost 90 per cent between their 1929 peak and 1932.

Let them eat woke

If you have ever been desperate and adrift, you understand the Democratic Party’s frustration. One day, James Carville tells his party to do nothing and let President Trump destroy himself. Another, the Montgomery Burns of American politics, Senator Chuck Schumer, advises a strategy of sustained resistance, rallying his troops to “make Donald Trump the quickest lame duck in history.” The old Senate Minority Leader feeds his angry, cannibalistic followers in hope they won’t eat him. Some Democrats protest their party has been too woke. Others, not woke enough. Pete Buttigieg, a man not often confused with a lumberjack, swaps “darn” and “shucks” for saltier words to demonstrate his party’s determination.

Democrats

Trump only harms himself by floating the idea of a third term

Donald Trump this weekend floated the idea of running for a third term. Unless he’s doing it in 1940 when Franklin D. Roosevelt did, it’s unconstitutional. I don’t mean unconstitutional for Judge Boasberg or Judge Chutkin or some zealot in robes in San Francisco or Seattle. I mean unconstitutional in capital letters for any judge, including a 9-0 vote on the Supreme Court. The legal background here is straightforward. When FDR ran for a third term in 1940 and for a fourth in 1944, there was no legal or constitutional prohibition against doing so. There was simply a well-established norm, begun when George Washington returned to Mount Vernon after two terms. That norm was respected by every subsequent president. Until FDR.

Trump’s attitude on Executive Orders is nothing new

President Donald Trump wasted no time implementing his agenda after taking the oath of office on Monday. He’s issued more than two dozen Executive Orders (and counting), touching everything from immigration to affirmative action to trade. The orders may align with his campaign promises, but underscore a broader trend in American politics: the increasing reliance on executive power over congressional votes. The attitude is far from new. The rise in Executive Orders can be traced back to the beginning of the twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt issued 1,005 Executive Orders from 1901 to 1909. Woodrow Wilson wrote 1,767 from 1913 to 1921. Herbert Hoover issued 1,003 from 1929 to 1933.

Can Kamala Harris escape the ‘Hubert Humphrey problem?’

When the sitting president is not running for reelection, the party typically turns to his vice president as the “natural” nominee. That’s true again this year, now that the Democratic Party powerbrokers forced Biden out of the race, fearing he would not only lose the White House but sink down-ballot Democrats alongside him. So, the party turned to his vice president to lead the ticket. That’s commonplace in the modern era, but it’s a relatively new development. It wasn’t true before the 1950s. That change raises three questions: 1. What was the earlier role of the vice president? 2. Why has that role changed? and 3. Why do those changes make it likely, though not certain, the VP will become the party’s next nominee?