Leubsdorf: Trump expands mandate

Senate Democrats foiled Roosevelt’s “court-packing” plan. A year later, the president suffered dramatic losses in midterm congressional elections: 72 seats in the House, and eight in the Senate.

Bush’s fellow Republicans ditched his Social Security privatization plan. Republicans lost both the House and Senate in the 2006 midterm elections for the first time in 12 years.

Trump’s dramatic tariff increases are designed to counter restrictions by foreign countries on their trade with the United States. But GOP political restiveness is increasing, as Republicans fear the prospect of renewed inflation and see the tariffs being rejected by Trump’s theoretical allies in the business community.

The three examples have something else in common. Their wounds were all self-inflicted. Each president sought a dramatic policy change inspired less by political or economic necessities than because he saw a way to burnish his legacy.

Roosevelt reacted to votes on the court that invalidated some key first term anti-Depression initiatives. Fearing the court might reject the New Deal’s centerpiece, the 1935 Social Security Act, Roosevelt stunned lawmakers by proposing in February 1937 to let a president replace federal judges over 70, including up to six on the Supreme Court.

The Senate rebelled, though 76 of 96 were Democrats.

Neither Bush nor Trump had Roosevelt’s extensive political support when they sought dramatic policy changes. Both had initially been elected while losing the popular vote.

But the day after his second election, Bush claimed a broader mandate. “The people made it clear what they wanted,” he said. “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and I intend to spend it.”

His proposal to let younger workers divert some payroll tax withholding to private investments was something he had mentioned — but not stressed — in the campaign. There was such a visceral reaction against it that the House Republican majority never seriously considered it.

In seeking dramatic changes in both the federal government and the international trading structure, Trump has three advantages neither predecessor enjoyed.

First, he repeatedly mentioned in campaign speeches that he would cut federal spending and increase tariffs. But proposals seemed to have lesser priority than deporting illegal immigrants and seeking retribution against political opponents.

Second, while his popular majority was modest — about 1.5 points — he won the seven swing states. And he helped to elect a very supportive Republican Congress.

Third, by granting billionaire Elon Musk’s so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” broad powers, Trump made a series of unilateral spending cuts — and dared opponents to challenge him in court, knowing that is always a time-consuming process.

On the tariffs, Trump simply assumed authority other recent presidents have enjoyed and made far more dramatic proposals than any even considered. A Washington cliché, often used to assess the long-term prospects for some controversial undertaking, is that “only time will tell.”

That is certainly true for the tariffs. It is far too early to know if Trump will stick with them and if they will ultimately work the way he hopes, inspiring negotiations with major trading partners.

But so far, neither Trump nor U.S. trading partners have shown signs of backing off, despite rising fears his actions will slow the global economy and could cause a worldwide economic recession.

Once again, a reelected president has sought to expand his mandate into a more far-reaching change than the voters wanted or expected.