By John Q. Hosedrinker 
California’s lawsuit against Donald Trump’s tariffs marks a significant legal challenge, alleging their unconstitutionality. This action, explained by Lawrence O’Donnell, stems from a belief that Trump’s actions exceeded his presidential authority. The suit represents the first state-level attempt to halt the tariffs, highlighting a constitutional conflict. O’Donnell contrasts this with his assessment of Nixon, arguing that despite Nixon’s criminality, he exhibited greater constitutional respect than Trump.
Read the original article here
Lawrence: As criminal as Nixon was, he had more respect for the Constitution than Trump. This assertion, while seemingly provocative, rests on a crucial distinction: the understanding and acceptance of legal and constitutional boundaries. Nixon, while undoubtedly a criminal, operated within a framework, albeit corruptly manipulating it to his advantage. He understood the potential consequences of his actions, and his ultimate resignation, while self-serving, demonstrates a recognition of those limits.
Trump, on the other hand, displays a blatant disregard for established norms and legal processes. His actions frequently appear to be driven by a belief that he is above the law, immune to accountability. This isn’t simply a matter of differing degrees of criminality; it’s a fundamental difference in approach towards the very foundation of American governance. The idea that he might face repercussions doesn’t seem to factor into his decision-making.
The contrast becomes even clearer when we consider the responses to their respective transgressions. Nixon, facing the undeniable evidence of Watergate, felt the pressure of a system—albeit a system he’d tried to subvert—working against him. He sensed impending legal jeopardy, and that ultimately precipitated his departure. While this wasn’t a noble act of self-sacrifice, it still demonstrated an awareness of the consequences of his actions within the established legal and political structures.
Trump’s case appears vastly different. His actions are often openly defiant of legal and ethical norms, fueled by a perception of impunity. He continues to act with a lack of concern for the implications. This suggests a fundamental lack of respect for the constitutional order that Nixon, however corruptly, still implicitly acknowledged.
The argument isn’t about minimizing Nixon’s crimes; his actions were undeniably reprehensible, and his administration engaged in systematic abuses of power. However, even within this context, his behavior suggests a grudging acceptance of the limits of his power. His actions, however illegal, were often carefully calculated to stay within the confines of the system, at least initially. His later attempts at obstruction illustrate a conscious attempt to avoid accountability within the existing system. He didn’t discard the system entirely.
Trump’s defiance represents a qualitatively different kind of threat. His actions are less about manipulating the system and more about openly challenging its very legitimacy. This disregard for the rule of law, the absence of self-restraint, represents a deeper erosion of the foundations of American democracy than even Nixon’s transgressions.
To further emphasize this point, consider the role of political parties. Nixon’s actions, while ultimately leading to his downfall, faced resistance from within his own party. While not uniformly opposed to him, Republican opposition played a key role in his downfall. Trump, conversely, has enjoyed (and continues to enjoy) the unwavering support of a significant portion of his own party, enabling him to act with a level of impunity that would have been unthinkable in Nixon’s time. This difference highlights a broader shift in the political landscape, exacerbating Trump’s disregard for constitutional norms.
The comparison isn’t intended to exonerate Nixon. Both men engaged in egregious abuses of power. However, the difference lies in their approach and the implicit acceptance (however begrudging) of the rule of law. Nixon ultimately recognized the boundaries of the system, even if he attempted to exploit them. Trump, it would seem, operates under the assumption that he is exempt from those boundaries. This is what truly sets the two apart, illustrating a fundamental distinction in their understanding and respect, or rather the lack of it, for the Constitution.
Ultimately, comparing Nixon and Trump is not about ranking their criminality. It’s about understanding the vastly different threats they each posed to American democracy. Nixon’s actions, however reprehensible, took place within a framework that, ultimately, held him accountable. Trump’s actions demonstrate a complete rejection of that framework itself. This is the essence of the argument that even though Nixon was undoubtedly a criminal, he still displayed more respect for the Constitution than Donald Trump.