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.
Every time we get a call from the RNC we always go to Trump’s site and donate the amount we used to give to the GOPee! It is not much, but with the way Donald Trump husbands his resources, he may not actually have to spend much of his own money on this election!
RE: Despite his protestations to the contrary, Cruz is a Washington insider who is controlled by the corporate elites.
Which corporate elites?
RE: I will take a benevolent Trump dictator that represents American citizens over an African Marxist that hates Americans any day.
Are these the only two possible choices for us in 2016?
I keep hearing this exact same sentiment, in various quarters, from Trump supporters. I would suggest that it is this that is a "strawman." I can't speak for the author of this article, but, speaking for myself, I understand very well the "basis of Trump's appeal."
It is precisely that which I find so troubling (as, I suspect, does the author).
National Review ... bewildered, besmirched, and beclowned.
Mistaking derision for applause, they find the electorate beneath them. As Bill Buckley would have said, and did, “Cancel your own goddamned subscription.”
Blah, blah, blah, etc...
Pundits who fret about reporters probably being killed, do so because they are distracted from placing the knife in the back of the patriot they are hiding behind.
It's so much easier to launch those false witness character assassinations from safety.
If Trump tries to become what they say he will, he would never get away with it.
First of all, he is a Republican and the entire Liberal Media Complex would lambaste him for doing anything outside of the Constitution. It would be the mantra, completely ignoring what any Democrat has done to eviscerate our Constitutional Freedoms in the past.
Secondly, Trump is a White Republican Male. No explanation necessary.
Thirdly, the slavish devotion that Obama received in his quest to Fundamentally Transform the United States would be used as a weapon against ANY Republican that dared to reverse “Progress”. The Headlines would brand Trump the new Fuhrer or Mussolini every minute of every day he is in Office.
When I hear Liberals whine about Obama being criticized, I ask them if they were in a Coma from 2001 to 2009 when Bush was relentlessly attacked for anything and everything he ever did. They possess selective memory, a Liberal trait.
This is the type of disdain that makes us sure we don’t want any part of the GOPe. These people are as mentally ill as the rest of the Left.
Thank you. I'm flabbergasted by the number of "Freepers" in support of a dictatorship.
Mr. Mercer, a reclusive Long Islander who started at I.B.M. and made his fortune using computer patterns to outsmart the stock market, emerged this week as a key early bankroller of Mr. Cruz’s surprisingly fast campaign start. He is believed to be the main donor behind a network of four “super PACs†supporting Mr. Cruz that reported raising $31 million just a few weeks into his campaign.
The emergence of rich and relatively low-profile donors like Mr. Mercer could single-handedly jump-start a presidential campaign, said Trevor Potter, a campaign finance lawyer who served as a Republican member of the Federal Election Commission.
Here’s where Ted Cruz gets his campaign money
Since he began campaigning for the 2012 Senate race in Texas, Cruz raised about $18 million, not including any Mercer money. His single biggest donor has been the Club for Growth, a conservative advocacy group funded by wealthy contributors including industrialists Charles and David Koch, private-equity baron J.W. Childs and tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel. The group has given Cruz $706,000 since 2011, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Among corporate donors, the oil and gas industry has been Cruz’s biggest supporter, even though it ranks seventh in spending among all candidates. Support from energy firms is hardly surprising, given that Cruz is from Texas. Law firms came next, followed by the securities industry and real-estate concerns. Here are Cruz’s top donors since 2011:
Club for Growth and Goldman-Sachs among biggest contributors.
>>>”They’re dishonest people” He hates them...but he doesn’t want to kill them<<<
Yes, but they DO want to Kill Trump. In the last week I believe two Political Pundits stated that Trump should get a Bullet in the Head and his Supporters should be Shot.
Of course, they were just kidding. Try telling that to the SS when the same is said of Obama and his Minions.
The Democrats nor Republicans would allow Trump to dictate as they have allowed Obama to do; Trump is not black, and therefore the squeaking wheel could not cry “racism.”
Only a congress willing to do so can reign in a president.
We will have 8 years to elect REAL conservatives to congress to limit the power of the next President after Trump.
Most of us are familiar with history, so save your keyboard, professor.
I am not advocating anything
Not buying it. You posted the wikipedia exert about Cincinnatus to support the statement made by the idiot who would be in favor of a dictator.
No one is suggesting making Trump a dictator. Don't be so literal.
Have you followed the thread? From post #5: "If it takes a dictator to save this country from what Obama the dictator has done, then I'm all for it."
Try reading the thread instead of cutting and pasting from wikipedia to give 'free history lessons'.
We have both parties in Congress willing to surrender their powers under the Constitution to the Executive Branch. The Iran deal and budget bills like the recent Omnibus bill fail to invoke Congressional authority and control. The Reps joined with the Dems to make this possible. So now NR is worried that Trump will become the new dictator ala Obama.
If Trump gets into the WH, I can assure you that Congress will make it far more difficult for him to achieve his agenda than it did for Obama. You can bet that the Dems will act like a real opposition party and you can also rely on the GOPe to throw roadblocks in Trump's way.
The reality is that Trump will not have the same latitude and leeway to act unilaterally as Obama has. The NR will be part of the MSM cabal castigating Trump in the WH. No more fawning MSM, which will also act as a check on Trump or any Rep who gets to the WH.
Trump—if he wins—will be the greatest President since Reagan or an impeached fraud. He will need to be strong because the Media and Democrat/Communist Party will do all they can to do a Palin on him and make him look the fool. But, like Rupert of the Rhine in the English Civil War—a Man who was “Parade Gay” earned the respect of his macho army because he gave them victories! So too, if Trump can give America jobs, a wall, a new respect in the world, he will become beloved. Like Patton said—”America loved winners”.
We’re in this current predicament because the jellyfish GOPe, whom this idiot writer supports, refuses to follow the law and impeach and remove the dictator infesting the White House. The entire GOPe is guilty of allowing unfettered corruption to sweep the land. In fact, they are a large part of that corruption.
The writer is a clown and a moron.
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.