EDITORIAL: Civics 101: Candidates’ promises, reality differ

April 28-- Apr. 28--The 2020 election is still 555 days away. But with candidates firing up their campaigns and honing their sales pitches, it's not too early for voters to dust off the civics lessons they learned long ago.

So, with 20 Democrats having declared they are seeking their party's nomination, and with President Donald Trump facing one declared challenger thus far for the Republican nomination, we seize this opportunity to offer some advice for voters who might feel overwhelmed: Focus on what a potential president can actually do rather than what they would like to do.

The United States Constitution defines a federal government filled with checks and balances among co-equal branches of government, and similar checks apply to officeholders at the state, county and city levels. The United States was formed, after all, following a war to throw off the shackles of a monarchy; we don't allow for the whims of one particular person to define how our country is governed.

That often leaves candidates torn between the reality of limitations and the lure of promising a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. For example, in announcing his candidacy for the 2016 election, Donald Trump said, "I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words." He then repeated that assertion throughout the campaign, although he has recently denied having said it.

Construction of a wall has been rejected by Congress, and the idea of Mexico paying for it was absurd to begin with. Whether voters actually believed those words or simply appreciated the sentiment, the oft-repeated declaration played a role in Trump's election as president.

All of which must be kept in mind as Democratic candidates variously float ideas such as "Medicare for All" or free tuition to public universities or universal child care or guaranteed income or reparations for the descendants of slaves. As Matthew Yglesias recently wrote for Vox.com: "The president's powers, while vast and larger than those of any other single actor in the system, are in their way fairly limited. And in particular, the president's powers don't include the ability to unilaterally enact the kind of sweeping legislative change that often dominates what passes for policy discussion in the 2020 campaign."

Another example can be found in the issue of whether felons should be allowed to vote, which has become one of the questions du jour for presidential candidates. It is an interesting philosophical query, but really is one for candidates at the state level, where such decisions are made. The same can be said for policy regarding the death penalty and, to a large extent, abortion rights or gun control.

Presidents are tasked with making federal appointments -- such as agency heads and judges -- and they can articulate a policy course. But they are limited in their ability to define legislation.

President Trump has not demonstrated much understanding of these limits and has often attempted to push policy through executive order. Opponents of President Barack Obama criticized him for the same thing, but it is worth noting that Trump has overstepped his bounds so often that Washington's Office of the Attorney General, led by Bob Ferguson, is 21-0 in court when challenging various illegal Trump policies.

The important thing is for voters to review their civics lessons and understand what is within the power of a president or a governor or a county chair and what is not -- and then vote accordingly. Our democracy depends on it.

___

(c)2019 The Columbian (Vancouver, Wash.)

Visit The Columbian (Vancouver, Wash.) at www.columbian.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.