Why It's Important Not To Nominate Someone Without Vision Like Status Quo Joe Or Mayo Pete

On Monday, American Prospect editor David Dayen conjured up his magazine's readers the idea of the next administration using presidential power for good in The Day One Agenda. He pointed out that Obama disappointed a great many progressives by "failing to live up to his lofty rhetoric" and noting that "a strain of liberal thought defended him by insisting that presidents just weren’t that powerful. Political scientist Brendan Nyhan mocked the mindset of the uninitiated by calling it the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency, after the DC Comics hero who possessed a ring that gave him near-total power, bound only by his imagination and will. To Nyhan, partisans hold the misguided notion that a president 'can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tactics.' In reality, he argued, a strong legislature, a Supreme Court that can overturn laws, and the dynamics of a polarized age make policy accomplishments a difficult climb." And he announced that the magazine "has assembled a team of journalists and subject matter experts to identify numerous core areas where executive authority is available and warranted in the hope that this will serve as a guide for how change can happen starting in 2021, regardless of who runs Congress." They also "asked the 2020 presidential candidates whether they would commit to any or all of the 30 executive power actions The Prospect had come up with-- like overhauling the business of Wall Street, cancelling student debt, legalizing marijuana and unleashing the existing anti-monopoly arsenal. Have you noted that none of this has anything at all to do with the current front-runner and virtually all of it comes from Bernie's vision for our country?

Theoretically speaking, this is all correct. A president has a thicket of checks and balances to maneuver through. But America has also been passing laws for over 232 years, and buried in the U.S. Code are the raw materials for fundamental change. It doesn’t take Green Lantern’s ring to unearth these possibilities, just a president willing to use the laws already passed to their fullest potential.

The Prospect has identified 30 meaningful executive actions, all derived from authority in specific statutes, which could be implemented on Day One by a new president. These would not be executive orders, much less abuses of authority, but strategic exercise of legitimate presidential power.

Without signing a single new law, the next president can lower prescription drug prices, cancel student debt, break up the big banks, give everybody who wants one a bank account, counteract the dominance of monopoly power, protect farmers from price discrimination and unfair dealing, force divestment from fossil fuel projects, close a slew of tax loopholes, hold crooked CEOs accountable, mandate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, allow the effective legalization of marijuana, make it easier for 800,000 workers to join a union, and much, much more. We have compiled a series of essays to explain precisely how, and under what authority, the next president can accomplish all this.

The need for a Day One agenda is particularly acute as we head into 2020. I keep sensing an undercurrent of despair when talking to liberal partisans about the election, a sigh that beating Trump is not enough but all that can be done. Yes, Democrats are only an even-money shot, at best, to flip the Senate. And yes, even if they succeed, Mitch “Grim Reaper” McConnell can obstruct the majority with the filibuster, and it would not be up to the next president, but the 50th senator ideologically, someone like Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema, to agree to change the Senate rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for legislation. (There’s always budget reconciliation, but that limited path goes through the same conservaDems.)

But this reality does not have to inspire progressive anguish. Anyone telling you that a Democratic victory next November would merely signal four years of endless gridlock hasn’t thought about the possibilities laid out in this issue. And if you doubt the opportunity for strong executive action, let me direct your attention to Donald Trump.

...Few of Trump’s ideas have been good policy, from a progressive perspective. Some, like the invocation of emergency powers, are a common tool of despots which never turns out well even when used by small-d democrats, from Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus to Roosevelt’s Japanese internment camps.

...As Trump has repeatedly shown, in entire issue areas like foreign policy and immigration and global trade, the next president would have expansive authority, all granted by a plain reading of the Constitution, specific congressional statute, or the legislative branch’s studied deference. Who the next president chooses for the Federal Reserve Board will define the course of economic policy.

Presidents can make regulatory decisions like who qualifies for overtime pay. They can decide who serves as a worker’s employer, a critical determination for collective bargaining. They can choose whether corporations should still enjoy a “safe harbor” to facilitate stock buybacks that enrich investors at the expense of workers. They can’t bring forth Medicare for All, but they can use Section 1332 waivers from the Affordable Care Act to enable single-payer programs at the state level, and potentially use nearly $1 billion from the ACA’s Prevention and Public Health Fund to defray startup costs.

Once you start thinking about the possibilities, it’s hard to stop. Statutory language is sometimes clear and sometimes muddled, but regulatory discretion is almost always broad. What a president chooses to emphasize, and how much the letter of the law can be bent to their preferences, makes a huge difference.

Executive orders are a poor substitute for the authorities already existing in statutory language. It’s nice that Democratic primary candidates have been talking about executive orders, such as Kamala Harris’s proposed actions to mitigate gun violence, or Beto O’Rourke’s ideas on immigration. Some executive orders will make a huge difference in people’s lives, like Harris’s, Amy Klobuchar’s, and Cory Booker’s plans for clemency boards and mass commutations for low-level federal drug offenders. (Joe Biden’s plan along these lines, predictably, is far narrower.)

But there’s no substitute for authority from Congress. And in a surprising number of cases, presidents already have it. They don’t have to rummage for a few votes for financial reform; the architecture of existing law allows them to reform already. They don’t have to muster courage from swing-seat representatives to fight big corporations and tax the rich; the Federal Trade Commission and the IRS can get us there.

Public momentum can keep these rules in place, as advances for the American people tend to stick around. For instance, when you cancel publicly held student debt, as the education secretary has the authority to do under the “compromise and settlement” provision of the Higher Education Act, it’s difficult to un-cancel it. When you license out excessively priced prescription drugs to generic competitors, as the government can do under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 or Section 1498 of the federal code, it’ll be difficult to un-license it, and shoot drug prices back up again.

And aggressive executive action can spur legislative action. Congress doesn’t particularly like governing, but they hate being circumvented. Presidents making known their intentions to use existing statutes to solve problems can lead to lawmakers finally getting around to it themselves.

How about the electoral college? Is there any sane reason to keep that? Any reason at all? Can soneone get rid of that on day one?