The third and final presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be held in Las Vegas tomorrow night. As someone with a Ph.D. in American government, I feel like I should be invested. Instead, I鈥檓 just hoping for the whole wretched contest to be over, so that Trump can sleaze on to his next act of narcissistic malice, Clinton can show us how she鈥檚 going to operate once she鈥檚 claimed her lifelong ambition, and we can see how things look in the cold light of morning.
For the past six months, when reporters have called to ask about Trump鈥檚 views on education, I鈥檝e generally offered the same assessment: 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 really matter what he says or what the campaign announces, because I think it鈥檚 all performance art. I don鈥檛 think he really means any of it. If he happens to win, I think what鈥檒l matter is who he appoints to office and what they want to do.鈥� What I鈥檝e found most disconcerting is that those appointments would matter so much because we鈥檝e gotten to a point where Washington can do so much.
While Trump鈥檚 campaign is descending to new depths of ignominy and lunacy, those eagerly anticipating the next Clinton administration would do well to remember that the world keeps spinning. Recall that on the eve of the first debate only a few weeks ago, it looked like Trump had the momentum in the presidential race and might win鈥攎eaning he could pursue his promises to 鈥済et rid of鈥� gun-free zones around schools, outlaw the Common Core, and all the rest.
Now, one of the blessings of our system is that it鈥檚 not supposed to affect our lives all that much if the 鈥渨rong鈥� person gets elected president.
The president presides over one of the three branches of the federal government, and is circumscribed by parchment, the judicial and legislative branches, and the realities of federalism. Heck, for most of my adult life, I鈥檝e been left cold by the candidates for president鈥攚hich means I鈥檝e always been comforted by the understanding that, regardless whoever wins, they鈥檇 have only a very limited impact on our lives.
I think that鈥檚 why, even more than the individual candidates in question, I鈥檝e found this year鈥檚 contest so troubling. The stakes seem to get higher and higher as presidents and their appointees tear away at the moorings meant to constrain them. I鈥檓 not na茂ve. I understand the desire of excited appointees and enthusiastic lawyers to do what they think right, even when it requires trampling precedent or distorting statutory language. During the Bush-Obama years, the U.S. Department of Education has creatively interpreted statute to give itself new authority to micromanage reading programs and school discipline, reward states for adopting the Common Core, and require colleges to strip legal protections away from students accused of sexual assault. All the while, those involved have not only been untroubled by their exertions鈥攖hey regard them as evidence of their virtue.
But the costs of all this can be immense, especially when you realize these same small-bore educational disputes are playing out across the whole of the government. It means that presidential elections increasingly feel like winner-take-all affairs, where the losers no longer trust that laws will mean what they once did. It means that losers no longer believe that they鈥檒l be free to work things out in their communities or states鈥攂ecause a self-assured, 31-year-old deputy assistant secretary in Washington will be declaring what constitutes acceptable pre-K staffing ratios or insisting that a 鈥渄ecent regard for our constitutional rights鈥� means that they have to let teachers carry guns in school. Winner-take-all stakes make things like compromise and civility feel like a sucker鈥檚 bet, because one side is going to make the rules everywhere, for everybody鈥攕o you鈥檇 better dig in and try to make sure it鈥檚 your rules that are getting imposed.
I realized a long, long time ago that I wasn鈥檛 going to want to get out of bed on November 9th. But that鈥檚 okay. I鈥檓 cool with that. Someone has to hold office in a democracy, and that鈥檚 the way it goes. I鈥檇 be a lot more confident in our future and our ability to bind our wounds and overcome our differences, though, if I saw any reason to believe that the appointees and attorneys who will be sweeping into office with Clinton were any more troubled by this than those who swept in with Bush or Obama. Sadly, that seems an unlikely bet . . . although, I suppose, it never hurts to hope.