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.
So, in other words, you're willing to completely scrap the Constitution and our representative republic, in which case, you're no better than the 0bamabots.
A dictatorship is incompatible with the Constitution.
you just need to be really careful who you make dictator.
Do you know how stupid that statement is? If you're a conservative then I'm ashamed to be associated with you.
bttt
The word DICTATOR wasn’t my choice. It was that of the writer of that Lib Nocturnal Emission. The very idea that they’ve been as happy as clams for 7 years with the lying, dissembling fraud we have now.
But they get their hankies all knotted up over a man who willingly turned his empire over to hirelings in order to stop the heathen saracen hoardes, save our Bill of Rights, and restore Freedom and Prosperity. THAT man, they’d label a dictator; but not the alien snake we now endure.
Don’t play word games with me.
Looks more like the media and especially Fox is committing suicide over Trump. This argument is pathetic.
Merry Christmas
They’re just mad because the establishment is losing it’s grip on the false narrative and their open borders-amnesty candidates are rejected by the Republican base that is sick of them and their “no leadership”, the Paul Ryan omni-bust-America “budget” that fully funds Obamas illegal alien invasion and 100s of thousands of sharia-law-loving “Syrian refugees”. They now want a “broke-America-cured” convention because they don’t like what the Republican base is voting for and this elitist establishment crowd never believed in democracy, anyway.
Send these oligarchs to the underworld to have tea-time with the 400 pound bearded lady who the cops are looking for in San Diego.
By the way, the stats show the polarity of our thin blue line, our cops, support Trump, so watch this same establishment crowd turn on the police and join with BLM domestic terrorists.
I’m sending $25 dollars more over to Trump 2016 this Christmas morning, and will be doing this until I hit the legal limit, yes I want a strong horse to turn this betrayal around and slap the flabby *** of the establishment like nobody’s business.
Agreed. We don’t need another first term Senator with little executive experience to run this country. Despite his protestations to the contrary, Cruz is a Washington insider who is controlled by the corporate elites.
Washington had the chance to be a dictator and turned it down.
Something like that, maybe.
Or just appoint me. I’ll depart after 4 years.
You’ll have to give me a bevy of women though.
Obummer is issuing presidential proclimations by the handful all to suit his agenda which cannot pass muster in congress. You know, the congress representative of the people???
I liked your inclusion of “Post-constitutionalist” if for no other reason than the absurdity of them acting as if we haven’t been “Post-constitutionalist” for some time.
I venture to state that when Trump becomes president, we’ll be a lot closer to “Constitutionalist” than we’ve been in some time.
I will take a benevolent Trump dictator that represents American citizens over an African Marxist that hates Americans any day.
The only way to stop getting your ass kicked is to fight back: Trump is America’s fighter!
“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 this is the first sentence, you needn’t read any further.
“They are all just writing articles for themselves. The noise inside the echo chamber is deafening.”
Yes, you are right. They are all just talking to themselves in their own bubble, many totally ignorant of what is going on outside of that bubble. Those that are aware write it off as something else. Very arrogant people.
They need to be put in their place, and Trump does it. I just love it.
I agree with your assessment!!
The courts need reforming. This should be a high priority for the next Republican president.
The political class has lost touch with the people. They no longer represent the people's views or preferences. The political class has morphed into the Uniparty, which is fully owned and run by the corporate class and special interests. Corruption and crony capitalism abound. The American worker has been abandoned.
Trump is not a dictator. He appears to be the only one connecting to what the people want from their government. The pundits call him a populist, which they consider a pejorative. For most of us, this is what we need to turn things around.
Populist: a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.
"They're dishonest people" He hates them...but he doesn't want to kill them.
I am just giving you a free history lesson. I am not advocating anything, just letting you know that from time to time the greatest republic that ever existed would when facing an existential threat appoint a dictator. That is not possible under our Constitution so we can't do it without first amending the Constitution.
You should lighten up a bit. No one is suggesting making Trump a dictator. Don't be so literal.
Leni
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.