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.
I notice the author says Putin “probably killed reportersâ€.
If it takes a dictator to save this country from what Obama the dictator has done, then I’m all for it.
Finally, at least this guy admits that Obama is a dictator.>>>>
I don’t think a president that would use his power to restore the laws in this country, which ignored by the current government, to be a dictator.
denying foreigners from entering your country does not make you a dictator>>>
agreed also restoring the rule of law within a completely corrupt government.
Yes
Caudillos can save the day
I am not playing word games with you. I was challenging the author also.
“Remove the Obama from your own eye before you attempt to remove the speck of dust from your brother's eye”
Well, Trump also has SS protection. Did they actually say they "were just kidding"?
If so, maybe that's why.
Nutcase fears Trump as dictator.
The country has become a banana republic under O. He rules by decree, either bypassing congress altogether, or issuing thousands of pages of “regulations” that no one bothers to approve, or dumping thousands of pages of new laws that congress passes unread. He sics his agencies to investigate and prosecute anyone who goes up against him.
That is Hugo Chavez stuff.
The fear is not that Trump will be a dictator, but that the powers behind O won’t be able to control him. The powers that have our congressmen bought, blackmailed, and intimidated might not be able to sufficiently buy blackmail and intimidate him. They fear he might undo the decrees issued by O and his czars.
They have the same fear of Cruz, which is why they were bashing him unmercifully until Trump came into the picture and started drawing all the attacks.
So suppose we get Trump, who loves America, loves its Founding, loves the Constitution, loves Free Enterprise, loves the Bill of Rights, loves Capitalism and loves Jesus?
I’ll take it!
............................................
Me too!
Their fear isn’t that Trump will be a dictator, but that on the contrary he will bring the Obama dictatorship to a screeching halt. They prefer someone who will build on what Obama built.
This article is phony, it is misdirection.
I believe a balance of power will be restored once the likes of Reid, McConnell, Hatch, Schumer, Leahy, et. al., leave the Senate and Republicans stop being afraid of their own shadows and the whispers of the Democrats who have them pegged.
-PJ
I think youve inadvertently seized upon why so many of us want nothing to do with Trump. We, like you, want the GOPe to die and never come back. The thing is, we don’t believe Trump to be any better. Sure, he says what many of us are thinking. But his entire life history shows a dearth of knowledge about the Constitution and the protections afforded all of common folk found therein. And as his supposed epiphany seems to suspiciously coincide with his decision to run for President...color us unconvinced.
And now let the messenger bashing commence.
Dictators? Why have a revolution? If we elect dictators, left or right, we should just say we’re sorry and give it all back to England. The president should have powers over the executive branch only, and have the checks and balances of the other two branches.period.Just because these other two branches have shirked their duty lately is no reason to give the executive branch more power than the constitution allows now.Shouldn’t have happened with Obama and it should not be allowed to repeat. We are constitutional conservatives on FR, right?
Good morning and Merry Christmas.
In all sincerity, do you really believe that?
I ask because I suspect there are just as many, if not more, and just as intent on corruption and power grabbing, awaiting in the wings to take the reins.
What needs to develop is a method, or procedure, whereby they get weeded out prior to getting comfortable in their little worlds of power and deceit.
Some say term limits, others wait patiently for voters to grow a few more neurons.
Personally, I would like the attorney general to start sporting a black hood and a long handled axe, then hold periodic and regular public proceedings, just to keep aspirants honest.
We HAVE a dictatorship and it is not just the function of one man. Congress has ceded its powers to the President and to his Agencies. Congress has little input in the passing of most laws. The courts have concurred. A Constitutional President cannot give those powers back to Congress. Congress will simply hand them back and the President will hand his extant dictatorial powers to the Agencies i.e. transfer the Dictatorship to the Agencies and the Left. That will be the final act of the Republic.
The GOPe would rather lose than win in any case. They have their deal with the Rulers, the Democrats. It seems lucrative to them and they do not want to disrupt it. They don’t understand that it is only temporary. When an official opposition is no longer needed then come the show trials and the nominal Republicans who hold elecive positions will be the first defendants.
The GOPe would rather lose than win in any case. They have their deal with the Rulers, the Democrats. It seems lucrative to them and they do not want to disrupt it. They don’t understand that it is only temporary. When an official opposition is no longer needed then come the show trials and the nominal Republicans who hold elective positions will be the first defendants.
What he said he’d do is eliminate some bureaucracies and return powers to the states. What he said he’d do is negotiate FAIR deals for America so we do not continue to lose every time we make a deal. What he said he’d do is make America great again and this will be done by getting us out of our debtor-nation spiral and onto a sound economic footing where Americans have jobs that belong to Americans, not all the other countries of the world at our expense. We can’t continue to be the fixer of the world’s problems and the safe haven for the world’s people. He wants above all else to protect our NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY that the politicos in Washington and around the world members of the NWO are trying to bleed away from us. I wouldn’t be at all surprised....and wish he would...try to get us out of the “United” Nations. That corrupt body thinks it rules the world and the US will pay for whatever they command.
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.