Over the past decade, experts have written extensively about how to reduce polarization and resentment in America, and now, after Donald Trump’s re-election, we’re sure to hear even more about civility and find a common ground. But there is a solution to partisan political bigotry that doesn’t require listening to your uncle’s opinions on drag queens: reducing the power and importance of the presidency in American life.

To be clear, the need to rein in executive power did not suddenly arise when Trump was elected. The best day to limit executive power was yesterday, but today will do just as well. The fact is that Trump will return to an Oval Office more powerful than it has ever been – the beneficiary of decades of accumulated privilege ceded to the executive branch by an apathetic Congress and an unserious Supreme Court.

The problem that Trump dream happily Using the state to retaliate against his many political critics and enemies is downstream from the problem that the office of the president gives him the power to indulge his fantasies.

Like Gene Healy, author of The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power, recently wrote For the Cato Institute, “the presidency itself has become a central fault line of polarization because the president increasingly has the power to reshape vast swaths of American life. »

The first priority should be to limit the damage caused by the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year in Trump against the United Stateswhich granted the president immunity from prosecution for nebulously defined “official acts.” A constitutional amendment putting the president in his rightful place, under the rule of law like all other Americans, would be preferable, but it would require a two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths voices. states, a level of bipartisan agreement that now only occurs in Aaron Sorkin’s private fantasies.

Democrats introduced the “No Kings Act” earlier this year to ostensibly control the Supreme Court, but the legislation is seriously flawed. This would not simply be a matter of declaring that presidents are subject to criminal prosecution; it would completely remove jurisdiction from federal courts over questions of presidential immunity – a nuclear solution that open the door to more partisan interference in the judiciary rather than fixing Congress itself.

A more realistic goal would be for Congress to reclaim its war powers from the executive branch. Lawmakers have made a few outings in this direction in recent years, such as passing bipartisan resolutions opposing American involvement in Yemen And unauthorized aggression against Iran (which Trump vetoed). Congress should continue to insist that the president respect his authority to authorize wars.

Likewise, Congress should pass legislation that would require presidential declarations of national emergencies to automatically end after 30 days unless approved by Congress. The excesses of COVID-19 lockdowns and Trump’s various lockdowns threats to deploy the army nationally This should be more than enough to convince conservatives and liberals alike that the president should not have the unilateral power to declare and indefinitely extend a state of emergency.

In 2021, Senators Mike Lee (R – Utah), Chris Murphy (D – Connecticut) and Bernie Sanders (I – Vermont) introduced THE National Security Powers Actwhich would have strengthened Congress’s power over arms sales, military actions taken under the War Powers Resolution, and declarations of national emergencies. More laws like this are needed. Unfortunately, Congress’s interest in its surveillance powers moves with the political windsand there has not been enough sustained bipartisan momentum to do anything about it.

Finally, strengthening transparency and public records laws would at least subject the imperial executive to public scrutiny. If we want to have Leviathan executive power, we should know what it is. The current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is useless for keeping tabs on the government, and there are no practical consequences for officials who flout the law. (If you are a Reason subscriber, you can read in the latest issue on why the Freedom of Information Act should be abolished and replaced with proactive disclosure.)

But achieving that would require de-escalation — an arms reduction treaty between the two major political parties — and there will be no political incentive to do that unless voters create it.