The statement “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is attributed to Lord Acton, a 19th century British politician, lecturer and writer who believed that unchecked power was the greatest threat to human freedom.

After their successful rebellion against a king, American revolutionists made this notion central to the Constitution of the United States. No individual or institution would have unchecked absolute power that would inevitably lead to corruption. The American experiment in democracy would be governed by a separation of powers, three separate but equal branches of government. The members of each branch were assumed to jealously guard powers assigned to them.

Article I:  Laws would be made by the legislative branch; the House of Representatives would be responsible for “all bills raising revenue” that is, power of the purse.

Article II: The executive branch would be responsible for administering the laws created by the legislative branch.

Article III: The judicial branch would be responsible for interpreting laws to resolve differences and conflicts that would inevitably arise.

The legislative process was intentionally made to be slow and difficult. The system would depend on the assumption of good faith and unwritten rules and norms.

The Constitution was conceived and signed by men of power, specifically, white property holders. Slavery was not specifically addressed as that was a necessary condition for acceptance by men of the South. Provision was made for amending the Constitution, a condition made intentionally difficult.

Since the Constitution’s adoption in 1788 the nation continued to expand as a prosperous and powerful nation of immigrants.

Fast forward to the 21st century: Two world wars brought the nation to prominence on the world stage. Thanks to friendly neighbors and the moat provided by vast oceans, the nation emerged unscathed and the world’s richest and most powerful after WWII.

Over the course of history, the unwritten norm, that election results, however unpredicted or contentious, the loser would congratulate the winner, and be able to try again.  The unpopular Harry Truman was expected to lose to Thomas Dewey in 1948. The shocked Dewey conceded. Although Richard Nixon believed he had reason to question the results in the 1960 election, he conceded but ran again in 1968, and won. Although in the election of 2000 Al Gore and his supporters believed that the U.S. Supreme Court should not have stopped the Florida recount, Gore graciously conceded for the good of the country, as did Mitt Romney who lost the election that he had expected to win in 2012.

After every presidential election, the peaceful transfer of power was celebrated by the media, politicians, and the public as a hallmark of democracy, a proud example for the rest of the world to follow — that is, excepting the election of 2020.

There is absolutely no shame in losing a presidential election — unless the loser makes it so by discrediting his opponent and denying the result. Ominously, not only did the loser personally deny the result, but 147 House Republicans voted against certifying the result. 

January 7, 2021 was marked by a violent insurrection attempting to overturn the result. A violent mob trashed the Capitol, endangering life and safety of members of congress and causing injury and death to several members of the Capitol Police Force. Amidst shouts to hang the vice president, a gallows and hangman’s noose were constructed by insurrectionists on the Capitol grounds.

How different would history be, had Trump simply said, “Congratulations Joe — see you again in four years.” He would have spared the nation, and himself, a whole lot of grief.

Instead, the ensuing four year period was dominated by Trump and his most insolent supporters insisting that the election was stolen.

Those years amounted to a “perfect storm” with incidents too numerous to recount here, that resulted in Trump winning a plurality sufficient to bring him victory in 2024. During his campaign he explicitly promised retribution, to punish enemies that had anything to do with lawsuits making him accountable for illegal behavior.

Can he actually use the presidency to punish his proclaimed “enemies within,” including Democrats, the press, Republicans daring to disobey his orders, immigrants, and the “deep state” that includes civil servants? With effective checks and balances he could not. But with the willing assistance of powerful Republicans voluntarily surrendering powers assigned to them, President Trump is systematically eliminating all checks and balances intended to prevent an all-powerful head of state.

The authors of the Constitution could not have anticipated members of congress, both the House and Senate, voluntarily surrendering power to a president clearly grasping power that is constitutionally unauthorized. With the aid of the world’s richest man, and the head of OMB, under the guise of “reducing government spending,” Trump intends to impound money authorized and appropriated by Congress. He promises to cripple, if not totally eliminate, entire executive departments starting with USAID, the Consumer Finance and Protection Bureau, and the Department of Education. Instead of insisting that those agencies were created and funded by Congress, and only Congress can eliminate them, House Speaker Johnson applauds Trump’s intentions.

Trump has already sacked thousands of civil servants and intends to further slash the federal government workforce.

With some unqualified cabinet nominees, the Senate his virtually abandoned its role of “Advise and Consent.” When Senator Ernst caved in to approve Secretary of Defense Hegseth, and Senator Cassidy, a respected MD, caved in to approve HHS Secretary Kennedy who questions the science of vaccines, it was clear that the rest of his nominees were in like flint, illustrating  the iron grip that Trump has on his Republicans.

Trump has made immigrants into “the enemy,” promising to deport huge numbers — this, instead of working with Democrats on a rational immigration policy.

How about the Judiciary; can the courts be depended on to save democracy? Even if courts rule against the Trump administration on some of the many cases under litigation, there are already threats to not comply.

And the free press? Already ABC and Paramount are caving in on lawsuits that they would stand a good chance of winning if pursued. Even the Associated Press is now banned from press briefings for referring to “The Gulf of Mexico,” instead of Trump’s preferred “The Gulf of America.”

If all else fails, it will ultimately be up to the people. By then it may be too late.

— John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears monthly in the Monroe Times.