Posted on 12/25/2015 7:53:32 AM PST by SeekAndFind
This incessant clamoring by voters and punditry for better "leaders" and more "leadership" is one of the most unsavory, dangerous, and un-American tendencies in political discourse.
When Donald Trump was asked last week by Joe Scarborough what he made of an endorsement from Vladimir Putin -- a thug who's probably murdered journalists and political opponents and more -- the GOP presidential front-runner responded, "He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country." Then he offered an incredibly dumb moral equivalency about how the United States also does "plenty of killing."
There was plenty of well-earned criticism directed at Trump's comments. Most commenters were offended not because the Russians are being aggressively "led," mind you, but because Putin does things we don't approve of. Perhaps if the Russian strongman used his muscle to tackle global warming as the Chinese Communists are pretending to do, the New York Times' editorial page would praise him for his forethought and willingness to act. If Putin banned protests aimed at abortion clinics instead of Pussy Riot, how many progressives would cheer him?
In contemporary American parlance -- and maybe it's always been this way -- a "leader" typically describes someone who will aggressively push your preferred policies. How much do Americans really care about what this aggressiveness entails?
Trump's entire case, for instance, is propelled by the notion that a single (self-identified) competent, a strong-willed president, without any perceptible deference to the foundational ideals of the nation, will be able to smash any cultural or political obstacles standing in the way of making America Great Again.
But this is certainly not the first time we've seen voters adopt a cultish reverence for a strong-willed presidential candidate without any perceptible deference to the foundational ideals of the country whose personal charisma was supposed to shatter obstacles standing in the way of making America great again. Many of the same people anxious about the authoritarian overtones of Trump's appeal were unconcerned about the intense adulation that adoring crowds showered on Barack Obama in 2008, though the spectacle featured similarly troubling signs -- the iconography, the messianic messaging, and the implausible promises of government-produced comfort and safety. Just as President Trump fans will judge every person on how nice or mean he or she is to Trump, so, too, those rooting against Obama were immediately branded unpatriotic or racist.
Obama's inevitable failure to live up to the hype has had many repercussions -- and none of them healthy.
One: Liberal hypocrites, who only a few years ago were lamenting how W.'s abuses had destroyed the republic, now justify Obama's numerous executive overreaches because they correspond with liberal political aims. Obama's argument -- and, thus, the contention of his fans -- seems to pivot on the notion that the president has a moral imperative to act on his favored policies because the lawmaking branch of government refuses to do so. That is weird. This reasoning will almost certainly be the modus operandi for presidents unable to push through their own agendas -- which, considering where the country is headed, will be every president.
Two: Other liberals (and maybe many of the same ones) argue that Obama hasn't done enough with his power -- that the president is unwilling to lead -- even if there are procedural or constitutional barriers for him to achieve what they demand. Too many Americans seem to believe that presidents can make laws if they fight hard enough, and these people now view checks and balances as antiquated and unnecessary impediments to progress.
Three: Many onetime small-government conservatives, frustrated with the president's success and the impotence and corruption of their party (often a legitimate complaint but often an overestimation of what politicians can accomplish), are interested in finding their own Obama -- or what they imagine Obama is, which is to say, a dictator.
Not that this fetishizing of leadership is confined to the progressive Left or the conservative Right. In fact, more than anyone in American discourse, the self-styled moderate pundit loves to talk about leadership. It would be a full-time job cataloguing how often a person will read about the nation's dearth of genuine leadership -- which is, in essence, a call to ignore the democratic forces that make truly free governing messy and uncomfortable. There are entire conferences teeming with D.C. technocrats trying to figure out how proles can be led to preferred outcomes and decisions. The moderates seem to believe that organic disagreements can be smoothed over by a smart speech or two, and they always mythologize about the political leadership of the past.
For many, it's always the worst of times and we're always in need of the greatest of leaders. It's worth mentioning that Putin was democratically elected, with polls showing his approval rating usually somewhere in the 80s. Unity! Regrettably, sometimes I think that's how unity would look here, as well. We, on the other hand, have disparate forces with an array of concerns, outlooks, and conflicting worldviews. This is why we might be thankful that federalism and individual freedom, often scoffed at, are at the heart of the American Founding.
"There is danger from all men," wrote John Adams in what may be the most genuinely conservative of all positions. Now, obviously, you have to have a certain skill set to bring people to some consensus, to make decisions about war, and to administrate such a massive body as our government. But the president is not your savior. A person empowered to make everything great also has the power to make everything horrible. If a president alone can transform America, then something has gone terribly wrong with the system.
-- David Harsanyi is a senior editor at the Federalist and the author of The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy.
Whoa cowboy your paid consultant face is showing.
I don't think they are calling for a dictator as much as recognizing that a dictator is likely the only way to undo what this one has done.
Thank you, I believe I will. Kbar points out that Cruz has always worked in some form or another for the government and you quote his law degree requires him to, classic circular logic.
LOL, oh well, then, my mistake---that's not calling for one at all./S
I'm a conservative, and I will never give one damn bit of credence to progressives who want to tear up the Constitution and install dictators.
The constitution, that you think was not torn up years ago, will not save the Republic any more than a restraining order will protect the life of an abused wife.
Then you've become a progressive who embraces tyranny.
Good luck with that. You're right in there with the rest of the fools who said, "It'll be different this time", despite the teachings of history.
This is a Constitutional republic and we scorn your type.
If it takes a dictator to save this country from what Obama the dictator has done, then I’m all for it.
Several months ago I saw a call for a military coup in America. It was in these FR forums. There was support for that idea. Just a few years ago there would have been cries of “Treason.”
And today we are so bad off there are calls for an American Ceasar. To hell with the people. To hell with our Constitution.
I understand frustration with Obama. I dislike him as much as anyone else.
But words have meanings, and there are words being tossed around on these forums that are dangerous.
What is truly sad is that you believe that your dictator, which you declare and support, will be any different than any other dictator ever... Something like, "He may be a dictator, but he's our dictator, dammit."
If conservatives of any stripe actually believe this, then the lawlessness of liberalism has truly infected the very marrow of our nation, and we are doomed, and rightfully so... shamefully so.
We are a nation of laws, not people.
“I lose either way because I’m a conservative and Trump is not.”
Just because you say so... I’m not convinced you are a Conservative or that Trump is not.
Precisely right. Imagine Conservatives willing to tear up the Constitution, who applaud going beyond it's constraints... You can't. They can't. Those who would do so cannot be Conservatives.
No blame for the politicians who will gladly do their bidding for a price? Why blame the Johns instead of the prostitutes?
Trump has never been anything but a crooked politician, buying crooked elected politicians and their crooked appointees.
Trump is not a politician. He is a private citizen.
I would not have believed you if you said last year that we would be seeing calls for a dictator on this site.
Well said. A dictator is not wanted. A Constitution respecting, small government conservative is what is needed.
If anyone tried different now and you need to resist, you won’t be alone.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." -Sam Adams
.
Participating in politics is politics.
Trump is a politician. Using government to advance your power and wealth is the very essence of politics.
What planet are you from?
Powerful quote. Thank you.
Big difference between embracing and acknowledging. There is no way to restore the Constitution by going through the Congress who has been busily destroying it. If you don't see that then so be it. Something has to be done to bust up the uniparty.
Truth sucks don't it. I took the Oath to defend the Constitution in 1955 and have been trying ever since to defend it but the scum politicians that take the same oath have been trying their best to destroy it. Stuff the B$ and wake up and smell the coffee and buy your own ammo.
I wish there was some way to dye Trump black so he can have the same carte blanche as O’Bastard enjoyed.
Politician: a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.