A Warning

The verdict is in. Despite some accomplishments, it’s evident Donald Trump is behaving immorally, weakening the party he professes to lead, undermining democratic institutions, abandoning crucial US alliances, emboldening our adversaries, dividing Americans with hateful rhetoric and chronic dishonesty, and surrounding himself with people who will only reinforce his defects. It was easy to dismiss a pile of insider accounts about the severity of the situation. However, the pile is now a mountain, and the stories paint the portrait of a leader who handles the nation’s affairs with persistent negligence. Donald Trump deserves to be fired.

Yes, top officials have frequently hit the brakes to forestall disastrous presidential decisions, but as I noted in the beginning of this book, my original thesis in the New York Times was dead wrong. Americans should not expect that his advisors can fix the situation. We cannot. The question is what to do next. There are good and bad approaches for handling the historic leadership failures emanating from the Executive Office of the President. We must address the second category first.

Firing a President

A psychological phenomenon is affecting a large portion of the country. Some call it “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS). If this were a clinical diagnosis, it would best be characterized as the disturbance in normal cognitive function resulting in irrational animus toward the president of the United States. Said differently: people who hate Trump so much that they can’t think straight. There is no doubt President Donald Trump is living rent-free in all of our heads. He occupies more daily mindshare, argument, and concern for the average American than any prior chief executive, but feverish consternation about a president shouldn’t lead us to automatically pursue drastic measures.

Those who suffer from TDS have had dark fantasies for years about how Trump’s tenure can be cut short. They’ve imagined he will be forced to resign for doing something so terrible that it shocks the conscience of the nation. They’ve prayed his cabinet will evict him by invoking emergency Constitutional provisions. They’ve yearned for him to be impeached and removed by the US Congress, or they’ve had other disgraceful thoughts that don’t merit discussion whatsoever but which perhaps deserve a visit from the US Secret Service.

On this score, I want to speak to Trump’s political opponents and his harshest critics, the ones who want him thrown out of office at any cost. I understand your frustration. I, too, have developed strong opinions about the president’s performance and whether he deserves to continue leading our great nation. But when we engage in careless speculation about the president’s ouster, we are promoting a level of anti-democratic behavior on par with the conduct for which we are criticizing Trump. It’s time to restate the obvious. Although Donald Trump is undoubtedly prone to contemptible behavior, we should not wish upon our nation the crisis of premature presidential expulsion. It might be how the story ends, but we must be reluctant to fire a president in non-electoral ways and should only consider doing so as an absolute last resort.

First, let’s start with terrible misdeeds. Some people hope the president will do something so awful that he must resign immediately in the face of widespread popular discontent. A few senior members of Trump’s team privately imagined the possibility. As one said, the president’s inclinations are so bad that perhaps we should “give him enough rope” to entangle his own presidency. This wouldn’t be hard. He is a factory that produces a steady stream of presidency-wrecking ideas. In that case, the advisor suggested letting him fire the special counsel and Justice Department leadership. He seemed eager enough to do it. If aides helped him follow his instincts, they speculated, it would lead to his downfall.

I find the proposition disturbing on its face. While the president has unquestionably engaged in conduct that is detrimental to our country, we should never encourage bad behavior only so we can punish it. For that reason, no one to my knowledge considered instigating such an outcome beyond making thoughtless comments. Steady Staters, or what’s left of the group, feel obligated to keep the presidency on the rails and to dissuade Trump from taking self-destructive actions. The country deserves nothing less. To permit a wrong—or to encourage one—is to be culpable in it. For the health of our republic, we should never long for our president to act egregiously enough to inspire bipartisan masses to demand resignation.

Second: the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Although this is a dreadful idea, the concept was informally broached in conversations in Washington’s halls of power. Trump’s behavior became so erratic in the weeks following Jim Comey’s firing and the appointment of the special counsel that a number of senior administration officials worried about his mental state. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reportedly considered wearing a wire to his West Wing meetings to document the madness in the president’s White House. Within days of Trump’s “fire Mueller” demands, others in the administration were having the same quiet conversations. They asked themselves, “Is the president still fit for office?”

The Twenty-fifth Amendment is a Constitutional provision that deals with presidential succession in cases of resignation, removal, incapacitation, or death. Specifically, Trump administration officials honed in on section 4:

In short, if Vice President Pence and a majority of the cabinet felt that Trump could no longer discharge his duties, they could remove him from office.

To be clear, this was not an action the president’s cabinet was preparing (or prepared) to take. However, the disarray was so severe—and concern about Trump’s temperament so pervasive—that his lieutenants talked about what would happen if the situation got worse. This included comparing notes on a breaking point. What level of instability warranted presidential removal? Was it debilitating cognitive impairment? Was it a reckless order that put the American people in danger? There’s no handbook for these situations.

A back-of-the-envelope “whip count” was conducted of officials who were most concerned about the deteriorating situation. Names of cabinet-level officials were placed on a mental list. These were folks who, in the worst-case scenario, would be amenable to huddling discreetly in order to assess how bad the situation was getting. Any discussion of the Twenty-fifth Amendment was hushed and fleeting, because almost everyone concluded it was irresponsible to speculate about it at all.

I froze when I first heard someone suggest that we might be getting into “Twenty-fifth territory.” That’s pretty scary talk, I thought. At home that night, I imagined how the hypothetical scenario would play out. The majority of the cabinet would probably meet somewhere in secret, away from the White House. They would draft a letter to the leaders of Congress certifying the president was “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Those gathered around the table would take a deep breath and pass the pen in silence, each signing a document they knew would become one of the most consequential in US history.

Once the majority of the cabinet signed, someone would pass a message to the vice president. He would be waiting elsewhere until he was certain there was sufficient support. Then he would make his choice. Mike Pence holds his cards close when it comes to his opinions about Trump, but if a majority of the cabinet was prepared to remove the president and elevate Pence—if the emergency was that serious—there is no doubt what he’d do. He would affix his name to the paper. Everyone would feel the gravity of the moment in their gut. Armored vehicles would race across town to the US Capitol Building, and a protected courier would walk the document into the hands of congressional leaders.

As I contemplated this scenario, that unwelcome visitor in the Trump administration—reason—took over.

I thought… And then what? President Trump would stroll out of the White House, take a bow, and get on a helicopter to head home? Doubtful. If the story didn’t already sound like a B-movie, this is where it would become a horror film. Removal of the president by his own cabinet would be perceived as a coup. The end result would be unrest in the United States the likes of which we haven’t seen since maybe the Civil War. Millions would not accept the outcome, perhaps including the president himself, and many would take to the streets on both sides. Violence would be almost inevitable. The ensuing strife would break us for years to come. Among other good reasons, that is why the option was not seriously contemplated. The whispered conversations about “the Twenty-fifth” ceased, though concerns about the president’s temperament have remained.

Trump’s critics would be smart to drop the idea, too. They should keep such fantasies to themselves, lest they further poison our already toxic discourse. In a democracy we don’t overthrow our leaders when they’re underperforming. That’s for third-rate banana republics and police states. The Twenty-fifth Amendment should be reserved for scenarios when the commander in chief is truly unable to discharge his duties, not when we are dissatisfied with his performance.

Third: impeachment. As of this writing, we are living through the prospect. We should not relish it. Impeachment inquiries are painful for the country and our political system, as history has shown. We must refrain from politicizing the impeachment process by letting frustration with Trump cloud our judgment about the facts. Much of the evidence of wrongdoing is disturbing, from the president urging Ukraine to investigate one of his political rivals to examples of Trump’s efforts to improperly influence the Russia investigation. It is the job of Congress to consider whether these actions rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and whether they justify Trump’s removal from office.

It’s un-American to hope our president is guilty of “high crimes.” Wishing the president to be branded a criminal and booted prematurely from office means wishing ever-greater division upon the United States. We can scarcely afford further disunion. That’s why we must put aside our passions and allow the exercise to run its course. We should demand that our representatives approach the deliberations soberly, without political malice. An impeachment motivated by public anger above truth would set a precedent far worse than whatever poor conduct it sought to remedy. Democrats in Congress should not rush to judgment, and they are obligated to run a fair process in the House. Similarly, if the evidence points to criminality, Republicans must not resist justice because it is politically inconvenient. They must follow the facts where they lead.

While I cannot discuss the specifics surrounding the present allegations against the president involving Ukraine beyond what is in the public record, as a general proposition it should not surprise anyone that Donald Trump would act in a manner that is unbecoming of his office and possibly disqualifying. He has always acted impulsively to serve his interests over those of the United States. As I’ve noted, he has repeatedly concocted ways to break the law if it gets him what he wants. More stories remain to be told and will come out in the months and years ahead. His ideas are often resisted, but they prove that Trump is indifferent to the reasons why presidents shouldn’t abuse their power for personal gain. When he is warned about the propriety or legality of his proposals, he is agitated—to the point that he has pushed out many of the senior people who’ve tried to protect him. He has few guardrails left. More worrisome, reelection will convince him he is freer than ever to put his self-interest above the national interest.

Donald Trump’s record is troubling. At some point, aspects of it might be found to have violated his oath of office. Unless and until that happens, though, all of the above courses of action are undesirable ways to fire a president. One option—and one option only—stands above the rest as the ultimate way to hold Trump accountable.

The People Themselves

In an anonymous essay designed to whip up support for the draft of the US Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “…the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves.” No other political force should decide whether he stays or goes, save for exceptional circumstances. There is a single right way, prescribed by the architects of this country, for holding our leaders to account. It is as elegant as it is blunt. It is the transmission line for all power in our political system, determining who gains, retains, and loses authority. It is the election.

The people are the best and most legitimate recourse for our present political dilemma. The democratic process exists for this very purpose, and we rely on transparent public debate and the popular will to keep leaders in check. The voters must review the president’s conduct and decide whether Donald Trump is fit for office, whether he embodies the American spirit, and whether we will allow the behavior of one man to define us as a whole.

The solemn responsibility rests with each of us. By definition, an electorate is the sum of the people in a nation entitled to vote. In the United States, approximately 75 percent of the population is of “voting age,” but turnout tends to be closer to 50 percent. That means in our upcoming and highly contested presidential race, half of the country will make a momentous decision for the others. One half will define us all.

We must remember that we are whom we elect. “Like man, like state,” Plato wrote two millennia ago. “Governments vary as the characters of men vary. States are made out of the human natures which are in them.” The government of the United States is whatever it is because the people are whatever they are. The nature of one man, the president, is not what shapes the collective attributes of a nation. It is the other way around. Our views, our aspirations, and our morality are what define the republic and are meant to be reflected by the people we elect.

On voting day, we will have had four years to make up our minds about Donald Trump. Entering the booth, there will be many factors to weigh when considering whether to reelect him to the presidency. Is he more qualified than the others? Is he offering a more compelling agenda? Has he demonstrated a record of success? As we stare at our secret ballots, the most important question of all will be: Does he reflect us?

There are several ways to answer the question. The first is “Yes, he does.” Donald Trump reflects our nation, and therefore, the choice is obvious. The voter will seek to reelect him. He’s the right guy for the job. The second is “No, he doesn’t.” If during one term in office, Trump has fallen short of our standards and doesn’t faithfully reflect our values, there is a chance to course-correct. The electoral process doesn’t pronounce a final sentence; it offers the chance to fix mistakes. The voter will choose someone else.

There is a third answer, though: “Yes, he does. But it’s not acceptable.” A voter may conclude that Donald Trump’s roller-coaster presidency is a faithful representation of what is happening in our society. They may argue that the 2016 presidential election resulted in the elevation of a man who embodied our country’s internal strife. His measure of wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance is a strong indicator of whether we are demonstrating those traits ourselves. Yet that doesn’t mean we have to submit to the malaise. We can admit that, although we ended up with the president we deserved the first time, we want better.

A single election will not change who we are, but it can signal that we intend to go a new direction. It’s only a first step. In the conclusion of this book, we will talk about the more urgent repairs needed under the hood of our republic. For now, any rehabilitation of “We the People” can begin with a declarative statement of change from “We the Electorate.”

In an odd way, an even bigger worry for our republic is what may happen if Trump is removed from office—by impeachment or a narrow defeat in the ballot box—and he refuses to go. In the beginning of the administration, I could see a man still in awe that he was sitting in the Oval Office, struggling to play the role of president. No conversation was too distant from the 2016 election and how, in his view, it was nearly “stolen” from him. Deep down there was a nagging insecurity that maybe he didn’t belong there. It was one reason why few dared to bring up Russia’s indisputable interference on his behalf in the election. But he quickly grew accustomed to the trappings of power, the ability to summon servants or Diet Cokes with the push of a button, to show the majesty of the Oval Office to visitors, to bellow orders and expect them to be followed. Trump relishes the cocoon he has built. He will not exit quietly—or easily. It is why at many turns he suggests “coups” are afoot and a “civil war” is in the offing. He is already seeding the narrative for his followers—a narrative that could end tragically.

Our moment for this conversation is now. We will lose all hope of having a real dialogue within ourselves and with our neighbors in the immediate run-up to Election Day. Rationality will be locked away at that point, and our judgment will be clouded by emotion. It’s always been this way in our system. If we consider our national character and that of our current president—in advance of voting—it will inform how we react in the heat of that moment. It may temper our factionalism during the race. Hopefully it will prevent us from making self-destructive choices on the ballot.

However, it will get harder by the day. The president is already attempting to intimidate voters based on cynicism and fear. With his trademark sarcasm, he is gingerly assigning comical call signs to his opponents to turn off independent voters. Trump also wants middle-of-the-road Americans to be afraid to go a new direction. “If you don’t support me, you’re going to be so goddamn poor,” he bellowed at a campaign rally, suggesting economic ruin without him. It’s become a refrain. “You have no choice but to vote for me,” the president told another group of supporters, “because your 401(k), everything is going to be down the tubes. So whether you love me or hate me, you gotta vote for me.”

We can’t cave to Trump’s elementary logic that there’s “no choice” but to vote for him. He should be fired. And it’s time to take stock of our options for his replacement.

The Devil We Don’t Know

I cannot overstate the consequences of reelecting Donald Trump. I’ve seen the impact of his leadership on our government and country, up close and all too personal. The Trump administration is an unmitigated catastrophe, and the responsibility rests entirely at his feet, the predictable outcome of assigning organizational leadership to a man of weak morals. What is more regrettable is that his faults are amplifying our own. I believe firmly that whatever benefits we may have gained from individual Trump policies are vastly outweighed by the incalculable damage he has done to the fabric of our republic. I cannot yet say who will turn the ship, but four more years of Trump could very well sink it.

There is something else to consider about the next four years—how lucky we have been to avoid a monumental international crisis since Trump took office. We have not suffered a major attack against the United States or been forced to go to war, but it’s only a matter of time before that luck runs out. Those of you tempted to vote to reelect Donald Trump, despite the scandals and despite credible evidence of wrongdoing, might want to consider what could happen when that crisis comes. Do we want to keep our nuclear arsenal, and our nation’s military, under the stewardship of a man who ignores intelligence briefings, who puts his self-interest ahead of the country’s needs during international engagements, who enjoys the company of foreign thugs, who our enemies think is a fool they can manipulate, who has shunned our friends, whose credibility has been shattered, and who our national security leaders no longer trust? Consider it.

Fortunately, there are already candidates in the race who are more honorable than the current president and stable enough to handle the demands of the presidency. With luck, the field will widen to include other public figures who appeal to both sides of our polarized electorate. I will not endorse a particular person. Every voter needs to make up his or her own mind. We don’t know what the final ballot will look like, which will impact every man’s and woman’s considerations, but the essential point is that we cannot be afraid to make a change.

Even still, the choice will not be easy for my fellow Republicans. The race is likely to come down to two candidates. Republicans will face a trade-off: “Pick the devil I know, Donald Trump, whose views align more closely with mine but whose moral code is visibly compromised. Or pick the devil I don’t, a Democrat, who will fight for policies I disagree with but is probably a more decent person.” Last time around, ideology tipped the balance over temperament. A semi-Republican Trump was better than a hardcore-Democrat Clinton, the thinking went. This time Republican voters should reconsider their math.

I’m not saying it’s desirable for our party to lose the White House. Most Republicans won’t support the Democratic alternative to Trump, but if the other side does win, Republicans shouldn’t be fearful of becoming the “opposition party.” It’s easier to fix mistakes wrought by bad policies than those wrought by bad people. Conservatives generally respected former president Obama as a family man but despised his agenda. In the end, a number of his initiatives were reversed as easily as the executive orders it took to establish them. Trump, on the other hand, has done far more damage because of his true nature. His innate flaws are the dark side of his legacy. They have cut to the core of our political institutions and civic life with long-lasting effects. We’d be better off as a party opposing the agenda of a weak president from the outside than apologizing for one from within. Besides, the last time Republicans were in the opposition, the GOP got pretty damn good at it.

Nevertheless, the counterargument to my point will be strong if the Democratic Party nominates someone deeply out of touch with mainstream America. Then everything changes. If it’s one of the Democratic candidates preaching “socialism,” Trump’s fearmongering will still be persuasive. Republicans will argue that the other candidate, as president, would attack our free-market principles, tax us into economic recession, promote a thought-police culture of political correctness, fan the flames of identity politics, and bring government into our lives like never before. It will be a repeat of 2016. Compared to the leftward-lurching Democratic Party, Trump will seem friendlier to conservative ideals. Discussions about qualifications will give way to emotion and fear, and Trump’s reelection chances will rise.

Democrats reading this book know how high the stakes are. I implore you, if you want a majority of our nation to reject Donald Trump, you must show wisdom and restraint in selecting your party’s nominee. Resist the temptation to swerve away from the mainstream. Trust me. We flirted with extremes in the GOP during the last cycle, and look where it got us. If Democrats do the same, Trump will be that much closer to a second term and better equipped to convince Americans to stick with him. If, however, you nominate someone who campaigns on unity instead of ideological purity, you will have a sizable number of Republicans and independents ready to make common cause.

Trump or an unnamed Democrat are not our only options. If we had courage, the Republican Party would seriously consider replacing President Trump at the top of the ticket. I know firsthand that leading GOP officials would like to dump the president if there was a strong candidate willing to step forward. They talk about it behind closed doors. Many Republican senators and congressmen are itching for someone else, despite the fact that they pay homage in public to the current occupant of the Oval Office. Some former Republican officeholders have announced primary challenges to the president. More may throw their hats into the ring before this is published. These candidates have obvious shortcomings, but Republicans should ask themselves, are those shortcomings more numerous than those our commander in chief has displayed already? Not by a mile, which is why the alternatives to Trump should be taken seriously.

In the end, if the Republican Party refuses to stand up to the president, and if the Democratic Party cannot nominate a candidate that appeals to both sides of our divided society, then we are in dire need of a leader bold enough to break the two-party system. There is an opening for an independent candidate ready to put country before party. He or she should be a leader whose platform is America’s common ground, not one of the respective tribal camps in US politics. A credible third-party candidate will find support from silent Republicans eager for an alternative, Democrats uninspired by their field, and independents desperate to break free of this mess.

Americans worried about a second term of Donald Trump have another choice on Election Day I’ve not yet mentioned. There is one final option for preventing him from wreaking havoc for another four years if he’s reelected. It’s an insurance policy, and it will be right in front of you when you step into the voting booth. Look down. Democracy’s next-best safeguard is the rest of the ballot.

You will have a slate of aspiring public officials to choose from who can hold the US government accountable. Don’t focus solely on your pick for the nation’s highest office and play roulette with the rest of the candidates running for the US Senate, the House, state offices, and so on. You must consider which of these people are ready to lead. Are they prepared to keep the president and our executive branch in check? Will they be unafraid to speak the truth? Do they have the honorableness and decency that have become endangered traits in today’s politics? If we exercise good judgment on the rest of the ballot we can better protect our country’s institutions and its future.

No matter what happens on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, Americans have another pressing review to conduct. It’s bigger than a presidential election. This particular duty doesn’t involve weighing individual candidates, or anyone running for public office for that matter. The task at hand is to judge someone far more important than the commander in chief, someone who will be illuminated by the national spotlight whether or not Donald Trump is reelected. Ourselves. The time has come to assess the civic fault lines spreading across our republic. The character of one man has widened the chasms of American political division, but if any good comes from the turmoil, hopefully it will be that it causes us to reinvestigate—and reinvigorate—the character of our nation.