US President Donald Trump on Friday slammed the congressional investigations into his team’s alleged ties with Russia as a political “witch hunt”. The potentially brewing scandal, which could yet become a full-blown crisis, has already claimed the scalp of Michael Flynn, as national security adviser, who announced Thursday he is seeking immunity from prosecution to testify to Congress.
Yet, the Russia allegations are just one of a mounting series of major headaches now facing the White House, which is still reeling after it pulled last month, from a vote in the House of Representatives, a landmark health care bill designed to repeal the so-called Obamacare legislation, in what was the president’s first major legislative test in Congress.
That debacle highlighted that, while Trump has shown himself sometimes to be an effective — if often highly unorthodox — campaigner, it is genuinely unclear what governing competence he will demonstrate as the first president since Dwight Eisenhower never before to have held elected office.
Despite the billionaire businessman’s claims of being a master dealmaker, the health care fiasco underlines how different the national political domain can be to that of running a privately-held family conglomerate. Health care, in retrospect, was a very poor choice for the administration’s opening legislative gambit in Congress. There was significant popular, interest group, and elite political opposition — from both left and right — to Trump’s bill which the independent Congressional Budget Office estimated would lead to 24 million fewer US citizens having health insurance over the next decade.
While there is still time for Trump to potentially turn around his presidency, the partisan animosity and wider political challenges now facing him means he is now badly on the back foot. This is underlined by his job approval ratings which have fallen to below 40 per cent according to Gallup, one of the lowest of any sitting incumbent at this stage of a first-term presidency in the post-war era.
Whether his tenure in the White House is ultimately judged as a success, or — as seems more likely at this point, a failure — will largely swing upon the skill with which he now re-energises his administration and tries to pursue a successful governing agenda. The presidency provides Trump with at least two broad powers: that of setting governing themes; and that of creating interactive coalitions among the public and within Congress in support of the administration’s legislative and wider programme.
Trump’s effectiveness in setting governing themes and building coalitions of support, which has been very limited to date, will depend upon his ability to exploit two sources of power: the popular prestige of the presidential office, and his leadership reputation among members of Congress and senior federal bureaucrats. Strong, effective presidents exploit each source of power interactively — as for example Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan did in the 1930s/40s and 1980s respectively.
To make the presidency work most effectively, Trump will now have to show rapidly whether he knows how to do both, defying expectations that are held about him by many voters and political elites. Since he assumed office, the White House has too often appeared riven by chaos, incompetence, and confusion with, for instance, its apparently baseless claims of wiretapping on Trump by the previous Obama administration; and legal setbacks to the hastily constructed bids to clampdown on immigration from several Muslim-majority nations which have attracted widespread domestic and international condemnation. Moreover, it appears possible that Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, could yet face a bitter showdown in the Senate this month. This follows a decision last week by many Democrats to oppose his nomination.
Going forward, Trump needs to demonstrate if he is capable of developing a governing agenda which has much more popular support. On the domestic front, it looks likely he will now — try — to build this around tax reform and infrastructure spending where there could be easier majorities in the Republican-controlled Congress to cultivate.
Using less polarising rhetoric
Beyond this, Trump also needs to use less polarising rhetoric, and demonstrate greater reconciliation after the long, bitter election campaign in 2016. After a period of such rancour, the country may be more divided than in living memory, and he has disputed political legitimacy with many voters who favoured Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton or other candidates, especially in the context of the ongoing Russia investigations not just by Congress but also the FBI too. Moreover, there have been only four previous occasions when a winning presidential candidate lost the popular vote, as Trump did in 2016: in 2000 when George Bush beat Al Gore; in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison bested Grover Cleveland; in 1876 when Rutherford Hayes beat Samuel Tilden; and in 1824 when John Quincy Adams bested Andrew Jackson.
The rarity of these electoral circumstances reinforces the need for Trump to strive for a healing of frayed relations, and establish strong governing themes for his presidency which command popular understanding and support whilst affording him latitude for political development and manoeuvre
Last November, Trump moved — partially — in this direction indicating he would govern for “all Americans” and “bind the wounds of division” from the campaign, and promised a “project of national growth and renewal... in which nothing we want for our future is beyond reach”. Yet, since he assumed the presidency, this spirit of reconciliation has got lost in the woods of Washington.
Taken overall, there is still time for Trump to potentially turn his presidency around, despite repeated setbacks in the last two months. In suitably skilled hands, the office offers potential for national renewal and unity at troubled times, and this remains true today despite the massive political baggage that Trump brings. The key next test will be whether he is capable of working more effectively with congressional colleagues to forge a multi-year governing agenda that can now bring the country together, rather than driving it further apart as now.
Andrew Hammond is an Associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics.
