Daily Herald opinion: Imbalance of power: Policy is worthy of debate and subject to change, but we cannot allow the means of enacting it to be altered

It was more than a half century ago when liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. first warned of “The Imperial Presidency.”

In his definitive book, first published in 1973 in the backdrop of the polarizing Vietnam War, Schlesinger focused on war powers, describing how over time, the White House had usurped Congressional authority to declare war and arguing that it dangerously weakened the balance of powers that had been envisioned in the Constitution.

Ironically, as much as Schlesinger saw a diminished legislative branch in his time, the Congress then led by legendary Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and House Speaker Carl Albert was indisputably more muscular than the acquiescent and purely partisan Congresses of our era.

During President Donald Trump's first term, he made use of national emergency powers granted to presidents previously by Congress to reappropriate funds toward the border wall. His critics, of course, were enraged, but the authorization Congress had passed was, in fact, wide open. It for all practical purposes allows presidents to declare whatever they want to be a national emergency.

We remember U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi visiting with our Editorial Board sometime after that, and it seemed natural to ask the Schaumburg Democrat what he thought the House should do to close that loophole. Since he was a staunch opponent of both Trump and the wall, it could have been expected that Krishnamoorthi would spring to life with ideas for structural change. But no. We heard only criticism of the policy, and no ideas for systemic reform.

Don't get us wrong. Our point here is not to single out Krishnamoorthi. Quite the opposite. The congressman is for the most part a good representative, one we've endorsed repeatedly and one who often offers solutions-based ideas for dealing with controversial issues. But in this encounter, we saw a dynamic that is all too familiar throughout our politics, and frankly our public discussions in general.

We focus on the lightning rod narratives and the sound bites that summarize them, rather than on the processes that allow them. Long ago in school, we learned that one of the dangers of Marxism and fascism was the Machiavellian philosophy they espouse that “the end justifies the means.” Do they still teach that warning in school?

Democrats now are charging the latest Trump presidency with authoritarianism, and make no mistake, there is reason to be concerned about his autocratic impulses. In the flurry of his initial activity, the bulk of his actions have been nothing less than direct orders. As he told The Atlantic, “I run the country and the world.” He defends these orders, whether they reflect good policy or bad, by the ends, ignoring the means.

The means matter. The constitutional processes protect us from tyranny.

We all need to recognize that.

Including a Supreme Court that sadly seemed more concerned last summer about the possibility of a former president being harassed than about the likelihood of an all-powerful president abusing the rest of us.

That focus on the means goes for the loyal opposition, too. For two years after the 2020 election, Democrats had a chance to make the structural change that would reinstitute limits that had eroded over time on presidential authority. For those two years, they controlled the White House and they controlled both Houses of Congress. They complained about Trump, they warned about Trump, but they did not do the structural work that would protect us from what they saw as the excesses of a president like him.

Why not? We can only guess it was because when they are in power, they want a president without limits, too.

We the people need to tell both parties, need to tell our institutions, that we don't.