Return of the Kingfish

By Tom Lamia

Donald Trump’s impending return is reminiscent of two politician scoundrels of the past century: Richard Nixon and Huey Long (the Kingfish). A dozen of Nixon’s aides went to jail for following orders. We could see that again.

The Kingfish created a corrupt populist fairy tale that took him to Louisiana’s governorship, the U.S. Senate and a presidential run before an assassin’s bullet ended his life. We have already seen the reality of that risk.

Immediately following Election Day I noted a need for the Democratic Party to reorient its message. Too many unpopular fringe issues were included. Republicans seem to recognize their losing issues (being against gun control, climate control and abortion) and wisely ignore them.

To their credit, the Democrats did not promote most of their losing issues: DEI (creating opportunity for marginalized people), immigration law reform (dreamers), past abusive treatment of native Americans and African Americans (reparations). There is support in the party for these causes, but not enough.

The principle is clear: do nothing to bring attention to your losing issues. Those are Zombies. Dead men walking.

But Democrats were not quick or clever enough to avoid being tarred by a Republican negative Zombie–an ad that attributed a losing position to the Democratic candidate. The Trump campaign spent lavishly on this ad where Kamala Harris spoke approvingly of federal expenditures for gender-affirming surgery for prison inmates (“Kamala is for they/them. Trump is for you.”) The ad had devastating effect. It should immediately have been countered, but wasn’t. The impression was that transgender rights were a key issue for Harris. They weren’t. Were the Harris advisers reluctant to hit back for fear of offending transgender voters? I don’t know, but if so, they should not have been—there simply are not enough of them to worry about.

Zombie ads resurrect dead issues. They should be avoided or countered in campaigns.

Can Trump avoid the several Zombie issues that he continues to push: revenge, retribution, election denial, mass deportations and pardon abuse? Another would be efforts to erase all state and federal traces of the legal troubles that he now has a holiday from (by virtue of his election).

For Trump and for the country the goal should be efficient governing, not the beating of dead horses. Leading his government effectively would be enough. If he is digging himself a hole, let him keep digging. He must avoid the distractions of his Zombie issues.

My December column (Let Trump Be Trump) forewarned that the new leader is entirely capable of turning his electoral victory into governing defeat, disappointing his followers by hubris, incompetence, corruption, criminality and anti-constitutional behavior. That is not my wish, but it is my expectation.

The Democrats lost the presidential election by spreading their message over too many issues, giving Republicans opportunities to pick off voter blocs at the margins. Republicans, wisely, did little to defend unpopular abortion bans. Instead, they warned of transgender bathrooms and surreptitious sex changes in schools—conspiracy theories affecting few, but inflammatory for many. Offending small, culturally marginal populations wins votes but comes with risks. A candidate must first win on the issues favored by a majority before straying into issues of social reform where controversy looms. Democrats chose not to get down in the mud with the Republican messaging on these issues. They were right. This is not abandonment of ideals or moral surrender; it is the essence of politics. Nothing is possible without the power of the office. You must first win.

Hubris

His inflated view of presidential power has already led Trump to the brink of repelling his kitchen table voters. They see him as their savior from high grocery prices, government red tape, immigrants and elitist snobs. They will not follow him into an imperial presidency.

Criminality

The Supreme Court has given Trump immunity for “official acts” taken while in office, but those who act on his orders do not share this immunity. The oath taken by all federal employees, including the president, is to support and defend the Constitution. It is not a loyalty oath to the president, but it is a solemn commitment to the rule of law.

The “rule of law” is our constitutional system of laws and related institutions. To recklessly and contemptuously bluster through governing, thinking you are untouchable, will invite push-back from the constitutionally separate legislative and judicial branches of government. Congress and the courts are insulated from presidential power.

Presidential aides and bureaucrats must follow their oath to the Constitution. They are not immune, but neither are they required to follow an illegal order. There will be criminal consequences for loyalists who carry out illegal orders. The Nixon aides who went to jail are examples.

Anti-Constitutional Behavior

Trump has a mandate to govern; he does not have a mandate to destroy the government. There are anarchists and nihilists in his constituency, as well as libertarians, racists, economic conservatives and populists. The goals of the first two are illegal. They seek to terminate the constitutional system that has provided us with the rule of law for 235 years. Trump has a choice to make: be loyal to the Constitution or accommodate his most radical followers and be a renegade autocrat.

Incompetence

The blueprint for the Trump administration, set out in Project 2025, includes creating a new Schedule F bureaucracy of political appointees to replace or reform the existing federal workforce. This is a very bad idea, but not illegal. The risk for Trump is that a mass departure of thousands of bureaucrats and their agency-specific expertise would bring government oversight to a halt and paralyze the nation. Even without a mass exodus, bringing in a corps of ideologically pure commissars seems immensely impracticable and reckless.

---

Tom Lamia is a retired lawyer and occasional writer. He practiced law in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and New York. From 2004 he and his family lived in a townhouse on Charles Street. In 2015, he moved to South Bristol, Maine, maintaining an apartment on Horatio Street.