Skip to main content

On Friday 27th January President Trump issued more than a simple policy directive; it was the formal unleashing of a political ideology previously unseen in modern democracy. His is a unique brand of politics that refuses to kneel to the power of the media, nor to the popular outrage of the world’s population. It is a politics that means he can sack the acting attorney-general for advising lawyers not to fight cases relating to those opposing his Muslim ban. It is also politics that is inspiring other powers in the western world to digress from their moderate positions.

Indeed, despite the ongoing demonstrations against Trump’s directive that have spread like wildfire around the world, he is steadfast in his decision. This refusal to renege on his executive order in the face of public furore is something that characterises Trump as a very new type of leader. He will not kowtow to the establishment, to the press and nor to his electors.

The outcome of tonight’s appeal hearing is important for America. However, of even greater significance is the psychology behind Trump’s decision to issue his directive in the first place. It’s no secret that Trump wanted to create an aura of hyperactivity around his presidency, as if he were the queen bee issuing orders from inside a honeycombed, perma-tanned hive. However, the notion of whether he pursued this particular executive order out of political pragmatism; namely to keep his minority of electors happy, is of greater importance.

If we look at the way in which President Trump has attempted to legitimise one of the most controversial directives in modern memory, the tenuousness of its legality is revealed. Trump has predicated his executive order on the pre-existing Immigration and Nationality Act, which ironically was introduced to change the regressive approach that the US had to external immigration in the 1960s.

The very fact that President Trump is clearly over reaching by basing his directive on a Democratic bill shows the fragility of his position. That he would rather pursue one of his integral election pledges by means easily overturned infers that perhaps he never intended for the policy to have any permanence in the first place.

Rather than legislating his policy fully, and seeking the support of his colleagues in the House of Representatives, Trump took pen to paper and with a flourish eroded any hope that campaign Trump was a hyperbole of what an actual President Trump would look like.

Instead, by announcing the policy as an executive order, Trump has been able to validate his premiership as one of immediate action, thus in-keeping with his political spirit animal of a bull (in a china shop). However he would probably tell you that his firebrand politics is a welcome change from the games played by Establishment lackeys who preceded him. Personal preference dictates which personality you would rather have with their finger poised above the red button.

Aside from commenting on the Trump’s dubious intentions for the success of his Muslim ban, there is little we can do until but wait and see how San Francisco’s judges side. As we head towards the decision of the intensely liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeal judges, we the spectators are left waiting to see which gladiator will win in this political grudge match of liberalism versus political pragmatism. Either way, one can assume that Trump will dry his tears in record time.

Charlotte Smith is a member of Bright Blue and a Researcher in the House of Commons. The views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue.