Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He taught political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University and wrote A Plain Blog About Politics. Read more opinion LISTEN TO ARTICLE 3:50 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email

Photographer: Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America Photographer: Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America

Get Jonathan Bernstein’s newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe.

The political scientist Thomas Pepinsky argued recently that the U.S. is on the verge of a “ regime cleavage,” by which he means:

a division within the population marked by conflict about the foundations of the governing system itself—in the American case, our constitutional democracy. In societies facing a regime cleavage, a growing number of citizens and officials believe that norms, institutions and laws may be ignored, subverted or replaced.

He concludes that the impeachment and removal of President Donald Trump may be the only way to jolt the system back and reassert respect for the rule of law and democratic norms.

I’m not sure this diagnosis is correct. It’s true the U.S. is going through an extended period of partisan polarization. But I doubt that’s a serious problem in itself. What’s more troubling is constitutional hardball: the willingness of political actors to exploit every opportunity to gain an advantage even if it destroys democratic norms. Recent examples have included efforts to strip the power of incoming Democratic governors in North Carolina and Wisconsin; to enact lopsided partisan gerrymanders whenever possible; to freeze out judicial and executive-branch nominations made by President Barack Obama; and Trump’s unsuccessful attempt to use the census for partisan purposes.

Constitutional hardball is, of course, a bipartisan temptation. But Republicans have acted on it far more in recent years. This leaves the opposition with the impossible choice of either conceding power or replying in kind. Thus the majority-imposed change in the filibuster by Senate Democrats in 2013 in response to abuses by Republicans.



So the problem may not be the U.S. system so much as the actions of one party. Julia Azari may be correct that some Democrats “have never been eager to lend a lot of legitimacy” to Trump. But the party’s elected officials have mostly done just that. At his inauguration, State of the Union speeches and other formal occasions they’ve treated him perfectly normally. Trump is the one who hasn’t treated Congress as legitimate, from his use of belittling nicknames to his refusal to comply with lawful oversight. And in this he is both a creature of his party and a ringleader in rejecting democratic norms.

At the same time, it’s worth emphasizing that these tendencies coexist with a lot of perfectly normal partisanship. It appears that we’re getting an example of that in Kentucky, where Republican Governor Matt Bevin has refused to concede defeat in this week’s election and there’s been talk that the Republican legislature might attempt to overturn the result. And yet it appears, at least for now, that Republican legislators are unlikely to actually go through with it.

Returning to impeachment: Azari contends that it “doesn’t have the institutional reach to address the real issues at stake.” Perhaps. I’d say, however, that with the exception of Bill Clinton, impeachment has historically been very much about abuses of office. It may be a blunt instrument that doesn’t really do what people want it to do. But one could argue that it worked reasonably well with Richard Nixon in 1974 anyway. And to the extent that Trump is being impeached because of his overall behavior — regardless of what specific allegations the House ends up making — perhaps impeachment is doing what it can do reasonably well.

1. Matt Grossmann at the Monkey Cage on what Virginia can expect from unified Democratic government.

2. Alan Greenblatt on gubernatorial elections and split-ticket voting.

3. Lauren Gutterman at Made by History on gender identity and parental rights.

4. Nate Cohn on nonvoters.

5. And a column worth reading from John Harris about centrism and the media.

Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.