Why winning elections never guarantees lasting change in America

OPINION:

For almost a thousand years, victorious Roman generals were celebrated in a “triumph” or ritual procession through the heart of Rome.

The celebrations sometimes lasted for days, and while they lasted, the general and his family were the subjects of devotion and obedience by the citizens. As a warning and a reminder during this celebration, however, one of the general’s servants was charged with reminding his master from time to time that “memento mori” (“remember, you must die”) — that is, his eventual death was inevitable.

Here in the United States, in the wake of all elections, especially presidential elections, we rush to conclude that the winning side will advance from victory to victory, and all of their efforts will result in unalloyed achievements. We even grant presidential winners a triumph on Inauguration Day as they process down Pennsylvania Avenue with their family members and retinue in tow and onlookers shower them with applause.

The winners, as they did in the days of Roman hegemony, appear invincible and nearly immortal. We are at that moment in the ascendance of President-elect Donald Trump and his team, which is made especially sharp by his victory not only over his rival in the presidential contest but also over a system that seemed set on his destruction. He and his political movement seem invincible.

But everything in this world has a limit, and the fortunes of American elected officials and their policy preferences are no exception. Winning does not breed complacency or incompetence; it is that the laws of gravity and probability and the relentless nature of diminishing time eventually catch up with us all.

Or, as the Romans might say, memento mori, no matter who or what you might be.

The remorseless reality is that the American system of government was intentionally designed to frustrate, delay and retard change. Power is divided by the levels of government and then again by the various components at each level. It is further diffused by staggered terms of office and election years. Only political sentiments that are national in scope and durable over time become embedded in law.

If a presidential administration is fortunate, it can effect a handful of durable changes to the system. In the most recent election, the voters were clear that they had pressing concerns about the management of the economy and an immigration system that allows the United States to be perforated routinely by those who enter the country illegally. Tackling just those two issues would be enough for most.

Even now, one can see the immediate challenges facing the new team. Like every administration, one or two of their nominees will not take the oath of office. They face an imposing challenge in maintaining and advancing a tax code to promote prosperity and address the looming debt problem. Reconciliation — whether a single step or the unwise approach of a two-step process — will be more complicated and take longer than most think.

Ominously, there is no uniform sentiment within the administration with respect to the extent of the threat posed by our adversaries in Beijing or what we should do about that threat.

There are other problems yet to emerge, but you get the idea.

The simple truth of American electoral politics is this: The winners are usually disappointed because they do not achieve everything they wanted to achieve, and the losers are usually pleasantly surprised to learn that the winners are, like everyone else, subject to entropy. The winners and losers are often certain that victory will bring significant and enduring changes to the nation. Both are usually wrong.

Moreover, the irreducible reality is that federal policies change within a fairly narrow range because of the difficulty of navigating the system and, more importantly, because American voters are mostly practical rather than ideological. Consequently, they are not big fans of sudden or extensive alterations, especially when they elect people to address a specific problem, such as the economy or unchecked immigration.

In most instances, we settle for changes at the margins because that is what the system — and the voters — will tolerate. It is important to set one’s expectations appropriately.

• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times.