Ratf**ked: How the ‘Unitary Executive’ Can Manipulate an Election
Ratf**k: “a term used by Richard Nixon’s campaign insiders to describe electoral fraud and dirty tricks they used against their opponents.”
In the early 1960s, young Donald Segretti, Dwight Chapin, and Ron Ziegler learned how to ratf**k. As members of the Trojans for Representative Government group at University of Southern California, they cut their teeth engineering student elections. According to Woodward and Bernstein, “Ballot boxes were stuffed, spies were planted in the opposition camp, and bogus campaign literature abounded.”
Not surprisingly, all three went on to work for the Nixon administration and were involved in the 1972-1974 Watergate scandal, in which they employed similarly underhanded tactics against their Democratic opponents and spent years trying to cover it up. When their crimes were discovered, Nixon used his presidential powers to subvert Congressional investigation, including ordering the firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, plunging the country into a constitutional crisis.
The crisis centered around the Unitary Executive Theory, and since Nixon both Republicans and Democrats have used it to ratf**k the other in a winner-take-all, zero-sum battle, leaving the American political scene a scorched-Earth wasteland. Because of this, the foundations of American democracy are being eroded, and Donald Trump is only making it worse.
What is the Unitary Executive Theory?
Article 2, section 1 of the US Constitution contains the vesting clause that gives power over the executive branch to the president for four years, an idea known as Unitary Executive Theory. Seemingly straightforward, this section has been the source of much contention, as some have interpreted it to mean that the president has nearly unchecked power over the people and departments in the executive bureaucracy.
On one hand, the weak interpretation of the Unitary Executive Theory is that major decisions, such as the hiring and firing of department heads, need to have the input of Congress to avoid the president from having too much power. On the other hand, the strong interpretation says that input from Congress is problematic, as it opens the door for political interference and weakens the president’s effectiveness, especially in times of turmoil. Although the Senate still has the power to confirm or reject presidential nominees, the vast majority of nominees get confirmed, meaning the president faces little resistance.
In the last few decades, both parties have used the strong interpretation of the Unitary Executive Theory to push through their agenda and ratf**ck the other.
The United States Postal Service
For example, the president has the power to hire and fire the head of the USPS. In May 2020, Donald Trump appointed Louis DeJoy, who previously was a major donor and fundraiser for him. Although he has business experience, he has no experience working in or with the USPS. Why was he appointed? Because he was loyal to Trump and could help him push his agenda. What his agenda is and what it has to do with the USPS is open to debate, but it is certainly suspicious that DeJoy has overseen the removal of 711 sorting machines in the months leading up to an election that is likely to involve record numbers of mail-in votes. It becomes even more suspicious that areas with the highest population densities often lean Democrat and have the greatest need for sorting machines. Therefore, because of the strong interpretation of the Unitary Executive Theory, Trump has the power to potentially manipulate an election in which he is a candidate.
The Federal Election Committee
Likewise, the president appoints the commissioners on the Federal Election Committee, whose job it is to enforce campaign finance laws. These laws include regulating “the sources, recipients, amounts, and frequency of contributions to political campaigns, as well as the purposes for which donated money may be used.” Without them, elections are open to all kinds of fraud and manipulation, making the FEC a vital institution, especially leading up to a heated election.
However, in the months leading up to the 2020 election, the FEC has been unable to perform its duties due to a lack of quorum. This means they have not met the minimum number of committee members to act. On July 3rd, 2020, Commissioner Caroline Hunter resigned taking the number of committee members from 4 to 3. The FEC website states “While the Commission cannot take action on many legal matters, staff continues to litigate ongoing court cases, process new enforcement complaints and responses, and investigate matters previously authorized by the Commission.” Therefore, they can handle ongoing matters and receive new complaints, yet they can’t do anything about them. If Trump was serious about ensuring a fair election, why wouldn’t he appoint a new committee member and restore the FEC’s quorum?
And why can’t anyone else in the government do anything about it? Because of the strong interpretation of the Unitary Executive Theory.
The Intelligence Agencies
The president also appoints not just the heads of the 16 intelligence agencies but the Director of National Intelligence, who oversees the intelligence community and sits on the president’s cabinet. On February 28, 2020, Trump nominated John Ratcliffe for the position, and he was sworn in on May 26th, 2020.
Since then Ratcliffe has used his position to defend Trump against allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 and the 2020 election, despite the intelligence community disagreeing. The CIA, FBI, and NSA published a joint report confirming interference in 2016, and multiple sources confirmed Russian meddling in 2020, again in favor of Trump. Of course, this hurts Trump’s image and his legitimacy as president, giving him ample reasons to reject the findings of his own intelligence community. However, this has also led to both Trump and Ratcliffe hamstringing the intelligence community’s ability to combat a foreign government from manipulating US citizens in an election year.
Yet again, no one can do anything about it because the president has unquestioned control over the executive branch.
The Justice Department
In February 2019, Trump appointed Bill Barr as the US Attorney Journal, who heads the entire Justice Department. Like other appointees, Barr has used his position to help Trump win the election.
For example, Barr has been accused of manipulating the public’s opinion about the Mueller Report due to his selective redaction and intentional misstatements. Why? Because the Mueller Report found ten instances of obstruction of justice and invited Russian interference into the 2016 election. The report claims the “investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” Mueller himself wrote to Barr that the information he released to the public “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions.”
Barr is also accused of interfering in the convictions of Trump’s advisors Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, helping in the removal of Geoffrey Berman, attorney for the Southern District of New York, and generally threatening the rule of law.
Because of Barr’s partisan use of power, the American public is largely unaware of the Trump’s misdeeds, helping him in the election.
A Threat to Democracy
According to Mettler and Lieberman, who wrote “Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy” excessive executive power has historically caused or contributed to a crisis in American democracy. They claim that the 1790s, before the Civil War, the Gilded Age, the Great Depression, and Nixon’s Watergate all bear a resemblance to today, as the strong interpretation of the Unitary Executive Theory has allowed the president to erode the delicate balance between the 3 branches of government. Donald Trump’s presidency has plainly illustrated that the executive branch needs to have its wings clipped to once again make it a coequal branch of government.
If you enjoyed the article, please consider donating a few bucks! Even a little bit helps keep independent journalism alive.
