Donald Trump has emerged victorious in the 2024 presidential election, securing both the popular vote and the Electoral College for the first time in three election cycles. His Electoral College win, with 312 votes to his opponent’s 226, was more decisive than his 50% to 48.4% edge in the popular vote. This triumph is further amplified by the Republican Party gaining control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, albeit with slim majorities.
While Republicans celebrate the 2024 election as a monumental achievement, history provides perspective. It pales in comparison to landslide victories such as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1936 win over Republican Alf Landon, where Roosevelt garnered 60.8% of the popular vote to Landon’s 36.5%. Similarly, Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater in 1964 with 61.1% of the popular vote, and Richard Nixon crushed George McGovern in 1972 with 60.7% to 37.5%.
From the era of Andrew Jackson, U.S. presidents have often claimed a “mandate” from the electorate, asserting themselves as representatives of the people’s will. However, the Constitution distributes power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches while also recognizing states’ authority to pursue their own policies. This design prevents overreach and underscores a historical lesson: even the most dominant presidents have faced limits on their authority.
As a proverb wisely reminds us, “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” The experiences of past leaders with overwhelming mandates illustrate the consequences of overconfidence.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, who secured a massive victory in 1936, saw his attempt to expand the Supreme Court backfire, damaging his political capital. Similarly, Lyndon Johnson’s sweeping 1964 win did not shield him from the fallout of his unpopular Vietnam War policies, which eroded public support. Richard Nixon’s commanding 1972 re-election was overshadowed by the Watergate scandal, which led to his resignation.
Trump, even before officially resuming office, is already showing signs of overconfidence. His selection of key appointments has sparked controversy and echoes the hubris of historical figures like the Roman Emperor Caligula, who notoriously considered appointing his horse as a consul.
While some of Trump’s choices are considered credible—such as Senator Marco Rubio for Secretary of State and Scott Bessent for Treasury Secretary—others have raised eyebrows. His proposed Attorney General, Matt Gaetz, faced scrutiny due to an ongoing investigation into alleged sex trafficking, though Gaetz ultimately withdrew from contention. Additional appointments include Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, despite limited experience in the field; Fox News host Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense; vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services; and Dr. Mehmet Oz, who has been criticized for promoting unproven remedies, as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
These selections suggest a determination to challenge conventional norms, if not upend them entirely. Trump’s willingness to bypass traditional FBI vetting processes for nominees and his prioritization of personal loyalty over expertise reveal an apparent disdain for institutional norms and a preference for taking risks. “His faith in his own judgment,” the article observes, “and his apparent willingness to bypass traditional FBI vetting, demonstrates relative contempt for expertise and a willingness… to play dice with the nation’s future.”
This approach aligns with Trump’s broader tendency to prioritize loyalty to himself over adherence to constitutional principles. The pattern of controversial appointments underscores concerns that he may be overestimating the significance of his electoral win and testing the limits of his authority.
As Trump prepares to take office, the challenges before him are considerable. History shows that even leaders with substantial public support and legislative majorities must navigate the constraints of the Constitution and the complexities of governance. Trump’s ability to balance his ambitions with the realities of shared power will determine whether he can succeed where others have faltered.
