The U.S. Constitution was designed with the knowledge that power corrupts — the powerful will abuse power just because they can. Consequently, the system was designed with three co-equal branches of government, each having the power to check the others from over-reaching. The human desire to achieve power would be checked by the desire of others to jealously guard their own existing powers.

Since not every contingency can possibly be anticipated, there evolved a system of unwritten norms of political behavior based on respect for the system that has compensated, more or less and most of the time, for behavior that was not specifically provided for in the constitution or written into law.

Progress toward “a more perfect union” has been slow and laborious, often characterized by a step back for each step or two forward. But adherence to unwritten political norms, and the system of checks and balances, has served the nation reasonably well. But both the recent disregard of norms and the — temporary we hope — erosion of checks and balances have put our entire system at risk.

Presidential disregard of unwritten norms include, but are not limited to, declaring the press as “enemy of the people,” celebrating violence against inquisitive journalists, delegitimizing undesired election results, advocating incarceration of political opponents, negotiating with adversarial powers for real estate development while campaigning for election, use of racial slurs and providing cover for others to do so, favoring money launderers over those who prosecute them, profiteering from political office, giving more credibility to leaders of adversarial nations than to his own agency personnel — the list could go on. 

But all of the above are unworthy of an American president.

Erosion of checks and balances is highlighted by total ignorance by the executive branch of oversight and investigative powers of congress. The power of the President to engage in military action absent the consent of congress has been increasing for decades, but has increased greatly since 9/11. This same president who criticized Obama for use of executive orders has increasingly pushed his own executive orders. This president has increasingly denigrated and resisted unfriendly court decisions.

Trump’s tendency and push toward autocracy has long been evident, demonstrated by his envy and admiration of “strong men” and dictators. Referring to investigative journalists, Trump reminded us that “Putin doesn’t have that problem.” Of course not; Putin’s journalistic critics are locked up or executed.

So, where are the checks and balances to this president’s excesses and outright lawlessness?

The framers of the Constitution assumed that one branch of the government would jealously guard its powers versus the other branches of government. What was not accounted for is a more personal conception of power. The desire of individual lawmakers to remain in power, regardless of the relative power of congress, supersedes their desire to retain powers of the entire congress. The power of the president to affect election, hence behavior, of the individual congressperson, greatly diminishes that check on the executive branch intended by the founders. 

In other words, Republican lawmakers prefer to retain their position in a weakened congress over exercising the constitutionally authorized power of congress. To exercise their constitutional responsibility would risk personal defeat urged by an influential president. The result is that instead of checking the power of an authoritarian president, lawmakers remain silent, or obsequiously support him — that is, as long as he is of their own political party.

It’s not just the congress, but the third branch of government, the court system, that is being subverted in its role of checks and balances. This is a result, not only of Republican diabolical cleverness, but aided by near total Democratic ineptness at broader political strategy.

This is where political gerrymandering comes in. During the 2010 elections, Republican operatives shrewdly targeted money toward strategic competitive state legislative seats with the intention of swinging state legislatures to the GOP. Why? Because in most states, the state legislature draws state legislative and congressional lines for their respective districts. With a Republican legislative majority, district lines can be drawn such that Republicans can remain in power even if they don’t get a majority of votes in their state, or the nation in case of the House of Representatives. 

Democrats were asleep at the switch as the Republicans pulled this coup. Apologists for gerrymandering may applaud this cleverness. But it is Republican lawmakers, not Republican rank-and-file, who benefit from gerrymandering.

Democrats were also ignorantly asleep at the switch during the 2016 elections. Democratic candidates for national office — all of them — seldom, if ever, even mentioned the importance of the election for the future of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Republicans hammered home to their voters the importance of the Court regarding opposition to gun regulation and women’s right to choose.

With the Trump victory, Senator McConnell now boasts of his role in stacking the federal court system at a furious pace. The Supreme Court has a dependable conservative majority, and will for the foreseeable future.

Gerrymandering has been done by both parties. But Republicans have perfected it and have benefited from it at both the state and national levels. It should be ended, regardless of party. 

Cases opposing gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Maryland and North Carolina have reached the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts ruled that “while excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,” that doesn’t mean that federal judges should intervene.

Apologists for gerrymandering insist that there is no easy solution. Nonsense — solution is obvious. For example, Wisconsin could look across the river to Iowa where a non-partisan commission draws the state legislative and congressional district lines that maintain integrity of county and municipal lines, avoiding snake-like districts that characterize much of the nation.

The difficulty is political. Those in power will do whatever they can to remain in power.

As long as gerrymandering favors Republicans, it was entirely predictable that the conservative Supreme Court would let it slide.

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