A System That Can’t Restrain Its Own Power

Today’s election is a public judgment on a government Americans see as corrupt and unrestrained.

But this is a midterm election. Voters cannot remove the president today. They can change who controls Congress, impose a political cost, and signal that the country will not accept the government’s conduct as normal… how did our system give one president so much power, and why has it failed to restrain him?

The failure has two levels.

The first is the concentration of power itself. Decisions made in Washington change the lives of people around the world who had no part in making them. People in every country on earth are paying nearly double to eat, to heat, or to move because of the impulsive behavior of one old man.

Now consider the possibility of a nuclear strike. Tucker Carlson reported that the option of using nuclear weapons against Iran had been floated and that a decision could come by this Saturday.

The Associated Press has independently reported that officials warned regional allies to prepare for possible renewed U.S. strikes after the election, while saying the president had not made a final decision. Even the prospect of such a decision reveals the scale of power concentrated in the presidency—and the danger of leaving it there without effective restraint. And the implicit end of any form of constitutional republic.

The second failure is the political system that can put such power in one person’s hands, then offer voters such limited ways to respond.

That is how the public can look at a government and see corruption, yet still be told that the solution is simply to elect the other party. A new majority may block some abuses or investigate others. But changing who runs the machinery is not the same as changing how the machinery works.

A credible beginning requires comprehensive campaign-finance reform, radical transparency, independent redistricting and term limits. These reforms will not make every official honest or resolve every political conflict. They would make it harder for officeholders to protect themselves from voters and easier for the public to see who is influencing government decisions.

The people who benefit from the current rules have little reason to change them voluntarily.

Today’s vote can show that the public has had enough. It can change the balance of power in Congress. But its meaning will depend on what follows: whether the winners treat the result as permission to take their turn, or as a demand to change the rules that made this crisis possible.

A government capable of imposing immense costs on people at home and abroad must face limits that do not depend on the character of the person in charge. If those limits are absent, the next election may change the names in Washington while leaving the danger intact.

Reform is what would make the vote count as more than a warning.