Campaigning Is Less Important than Governing
More on rational-legal authority (Biden) vs charismatic authority (Trump)
I wrote in Monday’s newsletter that I would likely return to the second half of that piece to explore more fully the Biden/Trump contrast and why it matters. Using Max Weber’s analysis of forms of legitimate authority, I argued that Biden leads from rational-legal authority and Trump leads from charismatic authority.
In the last 24 hours plus, three academics I highly trust and whose writing I always find provocative took the unusual step of stepping beyond the safe confines of academic analysis to more forcefully outline the stakes of the 2024 election. Here are Chris Gehrz, Scot McKnight, and Kristin DuMez. I will attempt here to follow their lead.
Two years ago when I started this newsletter, I wrote this piece about the way that our focus on campaigning rather than governance contributed to our ongoing political polarization. In campaigns, one can rail against the problems at our southern border. When governing, the focus is on balancing multiple competing perspectives in such a manner to win a majority of the House, 60 Senators, and avoid challenges from the courts. It’s hard, which is why we haven’t put forward a serious immigration proposal in almost 40 years.
Last year, I followed up making the argument that if we focused on the potential impact of policy proposals rather than talking points that sound good on cable news or social media, we’d do a better job of governing.
In my imagined universe, every story about border policy would address impacts for people on both sides of the border. Every grandstanding politician making claims about border security should be asked concrete questions about the impact on the stakeholders. In terms of budget negotiations and the debt ceiling, the same applies. Rather than claims about cuts to veterans benefits (which are not stated in the Republican bill but a natural implication of their policy of across-the-board reductions), we should have more stories about the people dependent upon the federal government retaining its credit rating and what happens to them if that changes.
My biases are pretty clear. I think the point of government should be governing. It is about those things that We The People commit to in the Constitution: “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
This is the backdrop for my Weberian analysis of Biden and Trump. Biden’s rational-legal authority derives from being able to move the levers of government in ways that become policy. It’s a skill that LBJ, who also served decades in Congress, had. In almost every statement made by a democrat, donor, or media pundit (even those asking him to step aside), Biden has had an exceptionally effective 3 1/2 years. His administration got things done that prior administrations had talked about but couldn’t pull off: infrastructure, economic rebound, climate transition, renewed manufacturing, the strengthening of NATO, and the support of Ukraine.
His friendly critics, like my senior Senator, rightly ask if he can manage a campaign over the next four months to successfully prosecute the case against Trump. They fear that Biden’s limitations are too great to overcome the deficit he faces (assuming the polls are accurate).
These are not minor concerns. Biden hasn’t been a charismatic campaigner at any point in his four runs for the presidency. He emerged in the 2020 race because his years of politics and governance had allowed him stronger coalitions than his primary opponents. Once the race turned on electability, he won the nomination because he was seen as safer than the other candidates in spite of his age.
Trump, by contrast, is a charismatic leader who prefers campaigning to governing. Even after his election in 2016, he continued to hold rallies because they allowed him to express his personality in front of generally adoring fans who waited in line for hours just to see him. The show is the thing.
A common theme in all of the books about the Trump administration was that he was easily distracted and didn’t really like all of the meetings he had to go to. That’s why he carved out “executive time” to see how his tweets, statements, and occasional policies were playing in the media.
Because the rallies are about the show, they are always successful. The crowds are always seen as bigger than the fire marshall capacity, everyone loved the schtick, and a good time was had by all, especially Trump. He’ll play his greatest hits and improvise some possible new material (“once-revered airports?”).
Next week is the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. It’s the perfect venue for someone relying on charismatic authority. The week will build night after night until Trump’s acceptance speech the last night. Along the way, you can expect all sorts of minor league speakers repeating the standard talking points, portraying the country as a veritable hell-hole that is overrun with crime, corruption, immigrants, hatred of Christians — all resulting from failed Democratic policies.
Here’s what they won’t be talking about — what to do about those (imagined or exaggerated) problems. They will argue that electing Trump and a Republican majority in congress will solve everything. But they won’t say how, because the how is unpopular.1
This week the Republican platform was released. CNN did an annotation of it yesterday. The platform is a series of broad goals (“Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion”, “End inflation and make America affordable again”). The way they claim to solve the latter is through the standard talking points: more drilling, less wasteful spending, cut regulations, stop illegal immigration, and peace through strength.2
Then, of course, there is Project 2025 spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups (including Hillsdale College and Liberty University). In his introduction, Heritage president Kevin Roberts3 says that their policy initiatives focus on “four broad fronts that will decide America’s future.”
1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.
2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people.
3. Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.
4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls “the Blessings of Liberty.”
While the 900+ page report outlines how the authors would like to see the federal government reshaped to pursue these goals, many of their specific ideas are draconian. To take one example, they want to ban pornography but then go on to explain that that means opening the door for going after librarians who have the “wrong kind” of books on the shelf or that supporting sexual orientation and gender identity is a form of pornography. They are readily encouraging interested parties to apply for positions in a new Trump administration to advance these goals.4
There are four “Pillars” to Project 2025. The first is the report. The second is the personnel database. The third is the system they have for training those selected to be in the administration. The fourth is called “The Playbook”. The website says:
The fourth pillar of Project 2025 is our 180-day Transition Playbook and includes a comprehensive, concrete transition plan for each federal agency. Only through the implementation of specific action plans at each agency will the next conservative presidential Administration be successful.
For the record, 180 days from Inauguration Day is July 18th — fifty-three weeks from tomorrow. Naturally, they are keeping the Playbook secret.
Here, then, is the challenge. I want Biden to be using his rational-legal skillset on January 21st, 2025. His continued leadership as an executive is needed for us to sustain progress on the critical business of the nation in years to come. Even as he deals with the concomitant issues of aging, I’m confident that he can find ways of continuing. And, if not, there are mechanisms that would allow him to step down.
The question everybody (including George Clooney) is asking has to do with whether he can get from here to there. His lack of charisma and questions about stamina will haunt him for the next four months. He’s not the most energizing speaker, although last night’s NATO speech was outstanding!).
Trump, on the other hand, will continue his outrageous rallies. Expect to hear lots about the US as a failing nation, about electric planes, about the difficulty of washing his hair, indictments, hostages, Hannibal Lecter, and, of course sharks. He won’t be talking about the specific policy initiatives to accomplish his lofty goals and the media won’t ask about them until he’s in office, if then.
But we know that a Trump return will be remarkably disruptive to much of society. His disinterest in governance allows (requires?) him to delegate it to people like Kevin Roberts, Russ Vought, and Steven Miller who have been chomping at the bit to enact their preferred policies for years.
It’s no wonder than the majority of Americans didn’t want this rematch between two old guys. But its where we are. And no amount of West Wing wishing is going to make it work out better.
So next week, pay attention to what they say at the Republican Convention. Don’t think of it as the latest episode in a reality series. It’s deadly serious and you should ask yourself, after every speaker, what would their speech mean for you and your loved ones next July. Because they aren’t playing.
They can resign themselves in the meantime to passing bills about dishwashers, refrigerators, and making sure non-citizens can’t vote (they can’t now).
Notice that several of these items overlap with other sections of the platform. But nobody is talking about how these things would work to lower prices. In fact, lessening immigration will raise prices.
You may have seen the clip of Roberts saying that this “second American revolution” would “be bloodless of the left allows it to be.”
I wonder what would happen if a raft of liberals and centrist folks applied for all of their positions. Maybe it would be like when the TicToc kids bought up all the tickets to Trump’s 2020 Tulsa rally.