Balancing necessity and the temptation of overreach
By NEVAEH KARRAKER— nakarraker@ucdavis.edu
Imagine one day the name for “sushi” is suddenly altered to “fish-rice burritos” throughout all restaurants. An eruption of repulsion and anger rises — no one likes it. It neglects Japan’s influential and unique culture.
Similarly, President Donald Trump signed executive orders to legally rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and the Alaskan peak Denali to Mount McKinley. The Interior Department stands by the president’s expeditious orders claiming that the process of retitling preserves American heritage, reintroduces patriotism and honors former President William McKinley — the peak was referred to as McKinley until former President Barack Obama issued the name change to Denali. As far as the Gulf of America, there is an incentive to enforce a rigid, straight-line border across this large body of water.
However, it is doubtful that this change will be internationally accepted or even accepted within the United States. Alaskan senators have fought to recognize the indigenous cultural history of the mountain for years, as Denali has been a historical landmark cherished by the Alaskan people. Unfortunately, sometimes promoting one culture means rejecting another.
Additionally, declaring a national emergency on the southern border has sparked conflict across America. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has swiftly detained thousands of suspected undocumented immigrants, sending the nation into a frenzy of terror. This fear was only amplified when Trump announced plans for a mass detention camp. He then endeavored to freeze federal funding of grants and loans to remove remnants of the “woke ideologies” embedded within the system.
After a federal judge temporarily intercepted this bold stance, the White House rescinded the freeze. However, one thing has been made clear — executive orders are driven by preferences. This seems obvious, considering that the Republican and Democratic parties will institute opposing policies aligning with their political beliefs, but there’s another layer to it — traces of bias.
When this bias is introduced, the term democracy becomes very convoluted, and we have to remember that an election is a time for the people to vote for a representative. Regardless of the party, administered policies will possess a certain percentage of this quality. While federal actions like increasing job opportunities, improving the economy and protecting culture have favorable outcomes for all, oftentimes the integrity of the methods employed is controversial.
Hence, this is where we might perceive exploitation of power or, to a greater extreme, possible dictatorship. To prevent this, the simple solution seems to be to completely do away with executive orders. That way, all future presidents won’t inherit unbalanced amounts of authority.
Yet, getting rid of executive orders would be undoing a whole governmental system. The executive branch would lose an incredible amount of power. Some may prefer that, but the consequences of this implication should not be taken lightly.
The purpose of executive orders is to direct the federal government to help mitigate national emergencies, like delegating wars and refining policies. Without it, the government would be at a severe disadvantage, as the branch would have no way of enforcing rapid legislation.
It is important to keep in mind that there are upstanding examples of executive orders. For example, the Emancipation Proclamation, the desegregation of the military and the formation of public schools were all executive orders issued by former presidents.
While there have been more than a few unethical resolutions passed, such as the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans and banning the LGBTQ+ community from the workforce, the process itself was intended to be virtuous.
Ultimately, there needs to be balance. Maybe the concern isn’t who is in power, but how they wield it. Executive orders have resulted in the documentation of both groundbreaking advancements and also controversy, revealing whether the decisions were based on personal or public preferences and whether they alienated entire communities or united them.
Trump’s authority is certainly characterized by a hint of excessiveness strikingly similar to Elle Woods from “Legally Blonde,” yet there is much more than pink frills and spirited speeches in his current administration — although it would surely be humorous if a legislature were passed for officials to wear more bright colors. A lack of executive orders weakens the executive branch, but unrestrained authority could lead to unwanted and harmful changes for the American people.
In the end, perhaps there should be a little less “main character energy” and a little more collaboration, such that executive orders refrain from being a mockery of political statements to advance one’s career.
Written by: Nevaeh Karraker—nakarraker@ucdavis.edu
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.
