Revolution Resistance Reform

By Tom Lamia

Eight years ago, I was in the West Village recovering from knee surgery performed on January 20, 2017, the day that national politics took a new direction. I wrote then, for a predecessor of this newspaper, that the new president had tapped a populist revolt among working class rural whites, a category that covered most of my new Maine neighbors. As I lay immobile on Horatio Street, I thought about the prospects for South Bristol, Maine, under a newly elected President Trump.

I concluded that the American republic was safe. Our Constitution and history would protect us. In 2017, I wrote:

Our form of government arose in rebellion against a king; it has multiple layers of protection against autocrats and tyrants, because such protection was of first importance to those who wrote our constitution.  Constitutional principles have kept the country together for 225 plus years, from our rural agricultural roots to our urban industrial present. These principles have been tested many times; they will see us through.  The Constitution balances executive, legislative and judicial power and that is fundamental.  But that is not our only protective umbrella.

I went on to say that the political norms developed in two plus centuries of economic and military success were in place and would protect us from radical change. That is where I was wrong.

Now, to right a foundering ship of state and find a constructive path forward, the choices appear to be revolution, resistance, or reform. These are distinct but related concepts. Reform seeks to improve an existing system, resistance to block specific changes to the system, revolution to completely replace the system. 

Revolution
We are currently in or fast approaching a constitutional revolution. President Trump claims he may do “whatever he chooses to do” by virtue of his office. This claim appears to exceed the executive powers allotted to a president in Article II of the Constitution. No case before the Supreme Court has been definitively decided for or against the presidential claim. In Trump v. United States, the Court did grant presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts.” President Trump may be staking his claim of unrestricted power on that decision. If the Court upholds the president’s claim, in all practical effect a revolution will have occurred. Additionally, the Constitution reserves to Congress spending and taxing powers now being exercised by the president who has taken direct control of certain executive agencies (Justice, Defense, Treasury, and Health). These and other signs of unrestrained presidential power are evidence of a revolution in progress. We must all fear the outcome. Violence and revolution are birds of a feather in world history. In 1860, the country and its Constitution faced revolution, with disastrous results. Another violent revolution is unthinkable, but so is appeasement.

Resistance
A resistance movement is an organized effort to resist an occupying power, causing disruption and unrest with or without violence. Civil resistance movements are currently active under various organizations both nationally and locally. Leadership and tactics are highly varied to date. All appear to be non-violent. Resistance to local authority during a century of Jim Crow laws grew into a civil rights movement that ultimately led to reform by the enactment of legislation, but it was 100 years in the making. Do our opposing factions today have the patience for, or confidence in, such a resolution?

Reform
Reform succeeded in moving the country from the Gilded Age through the 1920s with the enactment of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law and the progressive Republican presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. When stocks collapsed in 1929 and the depression followed, Franklin Roosevelt and Frances Perkins’ New Deal transformed the country through legislation and Supreme Court challenges. In the 1960s the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were enacted. These changes in our governance came from reform of our existing system. Reform is the winner in any contest among the three methods of bringing social and political change.

But is reform to accommodate the MAGA movement today even possible? Our constitutional system and democratic traditions do provide political tools to accommodate the MAGA movement. The executive orders and personnel actions now in process are being tested in the courts. Those that survive can be put before Congress, where MAGA is strong. The president and his party could achieve their goals without challenging the Constitution in the Supreme Court. If this path is rejected the Court has the final word. If the president rejects a Supreme Court ruling a revolutionary crisis will exist. Resistance and reform will have failed.

Summary
The United States has had other strong-willed presidents and leaders who have rebelled against constitutional limitations. John Adams and Andrew Jackson come to mind. Highly skilled financial leaders such as Alexander Hamilton are needed. Treasury Secretary Bessent could have a critical role to play. There are means to negotiate a solution without tempting disaster.

A Constitutional Third Way
Under the Constitution powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states. State governments are not all cut from the same piece of cloth.  They have the power to restrain federal ambitions and open a door to negotiation that is not appeasement. The Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce, for example, but the police power is reserved to the states.  Already this power is being used to protect state interests in “sanctuary cities.” State and local governments should use their reserved powers to fiercely defend local interests and, in the process, rescue the country from a rebellious federal government.