The GOP is staring down the barrel of a gun. Polling ahead of the midterm elections is abysmal, a major reason being the rising cost of living. Gasoline prices are up by nearly a dollar and a half compared to this time last year, with some regions forced to pay a staggering $5 per gallon. These burdensome costs are a result of the Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and strikes on Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure. Iran took these measures in response to the unprovoked airstrikes by US and Israeli forces which killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; a decision made solely by President Donald Trump and his Department of War. All of this has substantially reduced the global energy supply and jacked up the price of gas, electricity, and many other basic goods.
There’s an argument to be made for voting Democratic on November 3rd. First, to punish the bastards in power. Second, to gain a congressional majority that can be used to restrain further military action. A Democratic majority in the House and Senate could pass a war powers resolution or pull the purse strings to halt actions in Iran, and a ballot box wipeout might make the next warmonger think twice. In this version of events, the bad guys are voted out, the constitutional system corrects itself, and all is right with the world.
Unfortunately it’s not so simple. Leaving aside the sobering fact that the Democratic Party is just as hawkish as the Republicans, and assuming there aren’t enough John Fetterman-style renegades to kill the resolution in the Senate, ending the Iran War isn’t enough to undo the damage or prevent a similar tragedy in the future. Many chalk the Iran War up to the singular figure of President Trump. A few brave souls also attack Israel’s political influence. But these explanations don’t go far enough. There must also be a reckoning with the root cause. Why can the president unilaterally send us to war?
As Commander in Chief, the president is tasked with defending the nation and managing the conduct of the military. Presidential authority was first expanded in the 1863 Prize Cases, when the Supreme Court upheld President Abraham Lincoln’s blockade of Fort Sumter against secessionists. This set a precedent that the President may use force without congressional approval to defend against imminent threats. Over the years, the definitions of “defend,” “imminent,” and “threat” have been stretched quite far. Still, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is explicit: the authority to declare war lies with Congress. Technically, this provision has never been violated. The last time war was formally declared was in 1942 against the Axis nations of Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. Yet, since WWII, America has almost constantly been at war without a formal congressional declaration.
The shift to a state of constant but undeclared war began in 1950. Then President Harry Truman justified the Korean War as a “police action under the United Nations.” Under this justification, Congress’s exclusive right to declare war was never violated because no formal declaration was made. Congress didn’t push back. In fact, it acquiesced to Truman’s “police action” by appropriating funds for military operations and extending the draft. Permission was granted, setting a powerful precedent for similar acts. On the surface, Congress’s actions might appear to be a mechanical or policy failure. In fact, they belied a fundamental shift in the structure of the state in response to Cold War geopolitics.
In the atmosphere of the early Cold War, the United States stood tall as the only major power undamaged by WWII. Meanwhile, the European colonial empires were falling, and the global socialist movement was on the rise. The US had the means, the motive, and the excuse to create an imperialist hegemony of its own. This new world order required “police action” to keep other countries in line, and a quick-moving political system to approve those actions. But Congress would be too slow to administer this new system effectively. Therefore, the thinking went, the global police force would be overseen by the executive branch and its rapidly growing network of intelligence services. In short: the growth of executive power developed with the complicity of the other arms of government. This political shift was carried out in the interest of American capital.
A basic problem of our constitutional structure is that separation of powers is a legal fiction if political authority can simply be consolidated in a single branch with the assent of the others. Just because something works on paper doesn’t mean it works in reality. As has become glaringly obvious, a legal structure held together by decorum and respect is no structure at all, especially these days when the Trump administration lacks both.
In reality, the veneration of separate powers and checks and balances comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of state theory. Government in general is not an object that exists independently of social relationships. It draws its power from the backing of a society’s ruling class, and it uses that power to resolve conflicts and mediate between competing class interests. The existence of a government is rooted in class struggle. The division between the executive, legislature, and judiciary does not separate power at all, but only isolates it from popular control. In the end, all three branches are fed by the same source: capital. Democratic socialists instead advocate for subordinating the other branches of government to a sovereign legislature democratically elected by proportional representation, as enshrined in DSA’s Workers Deserve More program.
Following the debacle in Vietnam, Congress passed the 1973 War Powers Act over the veto of President Richard Nixon. A meager improvement, The Act mandated that Congress be notified within 48 hours of deploying armed forces and set a timer of 60 days to remove them unless Congress declares war, issues a statutory Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF), or grants a 30-day extension for safe withdrawal. The implication is clear: the initiative to engage in conflict belongs to the president, who can act first and ask for permission later.
Is Congress’s abnegation of its constitutional authority to initiate war a violation of constitutional principles, or the inevitable realization of constitutional logic? Either the Constitution actively enables the rise of an imperial president by allowing the other branches to defer power, or our political framework is powerless to prevent such a phenomenon. Neither bodes well.
The first AUMF under the War Powers Act was issued in 1991 for Operation Desert Storm against Iraq. Desert Storm was the first truly modern war both technologically and in terms of media spectacle. It also set a new standard for wartime political procedure. A decade later, a 2001 AUMF granted President George W. Bush the power to pursue the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, including those who aided and abetted them. Because it did not define any limits to this operation, the AUMF has been reinterpreted over the years to include the global scope of anything deemed “counterterrorism.” It was used as authorization for the 2021 assassination of General Qassem Solemani, a key episode of the Iran War saga. In conjunction with the 2002 AUMF authorizing the Iraq War, these measures provide the basis for the “forever wars” of the 21st century.
The war in Iran that began on February 28 does not cite the AUMF, instead claiming self-defense and an obligation under international law to defend Israel. As the 60-day deadline neared, Trump claimed that the brief ceasefire in April constituted the start of a new conflict, resetting the clock. In June, Congress passed a concurrent resolution on the removal of American forces, but it’s not legally binding due to the lack of a presidential signature. There are two possible ways for Congress to force an end to the conflict: pass a joint War Powers Resolution and overcome the inevitable presidential veto with a two-thirds majority, or revoke funding through its control over appropriations. Ironically, it’s much easier to illegally start a war than it is to legally end one.
It is too reductive to blame war on individual bad actors. We may replace the “bad people” in office with the “good people,” but the system that allows the President to act with impunity remains. There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship; collective democratic decision-making is the best safeguard of the public interest. The fundamental problem is not that a democratic process led to presidential absolutism, but that there’s an acute lack of democracy.
Democracy is both a process by which the masses come to make decisions, and the effective implementation of the collective public will. Despite widespread opposition to the Iran War, there is no recourse for ordinary people to affect change on such an existentially important question. Realizing public control over all levels of power and holding our representatives to account is not possible within the current constitutional order. There is no tinkering our way to a solution, no tweaking of our legal language that will change the fact that people have no means to alter the decisions of the state. The two-year election cycle is often pointed to as a way to repudiate the government’s decisions, but this again hits the roadblock of centralized executive power. With all our options within the present system exhausted, the time has come to fight for a democratic republic.
Let’s get down to brass tacks. DSA must use the unpopularity of the Iran War to educate and agitate against the state structure itself. In Congress, our representatives can fight to repeal of the 2001 AUMF to issue a rallying cry against endless war. On the streets, we can use the critique of presidential war authority to build consciousness for socialist republicanism within the anti-war and Palestine movements. Finally, the Workers Deserve More program should be revised to identify presidential war powers as an engine driving the US war machine and as a necessary terrain of struggle. The disaster unfolding all around us also creates the opportunity to fire back. Let no round in the chamber go unused.
Light & Air / Marxist Unity Group
Liked what you read? Subscribe to stay plugged in.
From Marxist Unity Group via This RSS Feed.