Let’s move on to the post-election period. No matter who wins, the next president will declare that he has a “mandate” to do something. And he will be wrong.
The idea that a newly elected president has the right to do things his way is a fabrication. The word “mandate” does not appear in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers.
The myth goes back to Andrew Jackson. He closed the Second Bank of the United States in part because he had done so in his campaign—although his campaign barely revolved around that issue—but it was based more on the idea that it was “The president of the people.” Jackson introduced the argument that because the president is elected by the entire country, his agenda has a unique legitimacy and urgency. This “constituted a revolutionary shift in the conceptualization of the basis of presidential power,” presidential historians Richard J. Ellis and Steven Kirk said. wroteestablishing the idea that the president derives some extraconstitutional authority from his connection to the people.
Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson—presidents I admire and despise, respectively—promoted this conception of the president as an avatar of the national will. In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln elevated the logic and language of the Declaration of Independence to justify a Union victory, the emancipation of slaves, and equality under the law as central to America’s purpose. Wilson wanted only to wield as much unfettered power as possible.
Proponents of the idea that the president is the singular instrument of the “will of the people”—sometimes called “plebiscitary mandate” — imply that presidents should have higher status than Congress because they have the backing of a national majority, while legislators serve only narrow, sectarian mandates from their districts or states.
This is unconstitutional, quasi-authoritarian, mystical nonsense.
The Constitution is incandescently clear At this point: Congress is the supreme branch of government. It writes the laws, declares war, levies taxes, creates most courts and executive agencies, and pays the salaries of its officers. It can fire members of the other branches, but the other branches can't fire members of Congress.
Majorities in Congress—and therefore congressional mandates—are formed around specific issues and interests as a result of deliberation and compromise. Or at least that is how Congress works.
Political scientist Julia R. Azari has identified There are two other theories of presidential supremacy: the “critical election” mandate and the “responsible party” mandate. The first holds that some elections represent a turning point or realignment that signals popular approval of a new agenda (Franklin D. Roosevelt claimed such a mandate in 1933). The second holds that if a candidate runs with explicit promises or policies, voters have a right to expect the government to follow through on them.
These are real conceptual distinctions, but in terms of practical politics and constitutional legitimacy, they are just different flavors of the same nonsense.
Which brings me back to this election. Vice President Kamala Harris has been shrewdly opaque about her agenda; she’s been far more detailed about the offices she no longer holds than the ones she holds now. When asked to elaborate on what she would do if elected, she often offers word salads and nostrums about how to bring people together. Beyond fighting for expanded abortion rights, her only plausible claim to a term is not to be Donald Trump — a promise she will have fulfilled by January 1.Day one“, as his opponent put it.
Trump hasn’t offered many details either, but some of the few he has given are highly controversial. Many of his supporters insist he’s not serious — take him seriously, not literally, as they say. They argue that he won’t actually send troops and police to remove millions of immigrants who are here illegally from their homes, presumably to put them in camps before deporting them. Likewise, many claim that he won’t actually impose massive, widespread tariffs or prosecute his political enemies in pursuit of “retribution.”
But you can be sure that, if he is elected, many Republicans will claim that he has the mandate to do exactly that. Perhaps that will help progressives who love the idea of presidential terms — when they win — see the problem they have.
Presidential electoral majorities never speak with one voice in favor of a political platform. In 2020, many people voted against Trump more than for Biden. Certainly, few votes for Biden were cast for a second coming of FDR, as he allegedly told a group of supporters. historians He wanted to be. If voters had wanted that, they would have given Biden the majorities in Congress that they gave Roosevelt.
Presidential elections are nothing more than job interviews. The person voters decide to hire will have only one real mandate: to do the job assigned to him by the Constitution.
