Is French Cohabitation Coming to America?

assemble, nationale, dbat, dput, politique, paris

In France the President cannot appoint a cabinet of his own choosing, if the legislature is controlled by a majority of the opposition party. Instead, cohabitation results, where the prime minister and most of the cabinet members reflect the views of the party with a legislative majority as much as they do the President.  Thus, newly elected President Emmanuel Macron is running very hard to get a majority for his party, En Marche!, in the French General Assembly in the coming legislative elections.

Given our increasing polarization, the United States may soon have periods that have some resemblance to French cohabitation.  We are already seeing the end of the opposition party’s traditional deference to the President’s cabinet choices. Democrats have voted against Trump’s picks  in far greater numbers than an opposition party has in any previous administration. In many cases no Democrat supported the Trump nominee and in other cases only a few did.

Of course, it is not surprising that a few Democrats opposed almost all his choices. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kristen Gillibrand, Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders are thinking of running in 2020 and want to impress Democratic primary voters by the vehemence of their resistance.  But the ubiquity of opposition at the beginning of an administration is a first.

The next step in partisan warfare is for the majority party in the Senate to refuse to confirm many of the President’s choices and insist that some members of their party be appointed instead. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a party’s leveraging its power of advice and consent in this manner, only the disappearing tradition of deference.

Some might argue that the unprecedented level of opposition to Trump’s cabinet can be explained by the unprecedented nature of Trump himself and the absence of a honeymoon period. But Republicans in the latter part of the Obama administration cast an extraordinary number of votes against his cabinet picks, suggesting that increasing polarization, not Trump, is the underlying dynamic ending deference.    And if the current Democratic opposition is in part payback for Republican opposition to President Obama’s nominees,  that is all the more reason to suspect that a Republican majority would payback a Democratic President in kind.

Cohabitation would not occur all at once. A majority party would initially choose a few posts to insist on a compromise choice of its liking.  But if party polarization continues, it is possible that we will move some way toward a norm that looks more like cohabitation than the deference that has characterized modern American politics.  That change probably advantages the Democrats. Given that the civil service is on the whole left-liberal, Republicans are in greater need of Republican cabinet officials to prod the bureaucracy and speak over their heads to the American people.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on May 29, 2017 at 03:25:50 am

Great title! That should attract a few clicks.

And a worthy topic which I hadn't seen discussed before. In this polarized age, it's interesting to note that some levers of raw power had not been fully exploited yet--and to speculate about what will happen when they are.

If appointment fights mean that agencies operate for longer periods without getting any leaders confirmed, would this result in the agencies giving vent to the bureaucrats' more progressive preferences? Perhaps. Or perhaps it would just result in bureaucrats becoming inactive. If you give staff a message that they could face punishment for taking initiatives that the future boss doesn't like, but not for waiting passively, well, even people with ideological preferences like long lunch breaks. And passivity would arguably favor the interests of small-government people.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
on May 29, 2017 at 10:35:16 am


"long lunch breaks" - luvv'd it!

Hey how about we simply pay them and tell them to stay home all week. That would be an improvement.


So what is new about "cohabitation"?
Any Republican Prez MUST face this as the Fed Admin State IS FULLY populated by the opposition and it appears that it makes absolutely no difference whether the Prez gets his man / woman in place.

read full comment
Image of gabe
on May 29, 2017 at 13:31:27 pm

The only barrier in the U.S. Constitution to reversion to a parliamentary system (strong prime minister) is that the president nominates candidates to become secretaries of those departments. If the Senate started to refuse to consent to any of his nominees, then the post could remain open until one side or the other couldn't stand it any more, or the president assumed direct authority oven the departments, either personally or through political appointees that do not need Senate approval. We can see the beginnings of that now. When Condoleeza Rice was national security adviser, the State department took their direction from her more than from the Secretary of State.

The only step missing would be for Congress to withdraw the authority of the President to directly control the departments.

read full comment
Image of Jon Roland
Jon Roland
on May 29, 2017 at 14:19:00 pm

It makes some difference in that his new appointees have hiring and promotion authority, and the "opposition" civil service picks up on that, and pretend to go along. What is missing is efficient firing authority, other than just assigning one to an empty desk and then eliminating it. Civil service rules and the government employees unions make firing too difficult.

read full comment
Image of Jon Roland
Jon Roland

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.