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.
They know how to peel the taxpeasants for folding money, like a bunch of onions...
{ We are constitutional conservatives on FR, right?}
Sadly, obviously not. Many on this very thread view the constitution and conservatism as fluid as the liberals they purportedly disagree with. At least they’re finally being honest, just as the article posed: they just want THEIR guy in power.
I think I would tweak Samuel Adams quote:
If you love POWER greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
RE: I don’t know about wanting a dictator, but we are SURE tired of YOUR dictator, Obama.
As I asked before, is the choice between one dictator over another? Why can’t we have someone who will fight to uphold the constitution?
If it takes a dictator to save this country from what Obama the dictator has done, then I’m all for it.
Count me out. All it takes is following the Constitution. Anything else is not saving the country. It is destroying it.
Given the size and pervasiveness of the current federal government this is physically impossible, and frankly there is no real reason why farmers can't be free to farm and ditch diggers dig instead of spending most of their time and attention on politics. It has led to certain outrageous practices even within the political class: the passage of the 2000+ 0bamacare bill and the more recent Omnibus Spending package without even the courtesy of a reading show that the system capable of it is broken. It is that that the current "conservative" (for want of a better word) political agenda is attempting to address. An authoritarian figure effecting it is certainly a problem, but the current system holds a myriad of little dictators each with his and her own fiefdom and accountable to no one. The author acknowledges that it isn't much of an improvement.
What small-government conservatives wish to conserve is a system that militates against dictators, and there is no real indication (yet) that Trump is insincere about his intentions in that direction. Cincinnatus returned to his plow after defeating the enemy, recall, not after defeating the system that produced him. We're after the latter, and it is a much more difficult undertaking.
And at least part of Trump's appeal is a rejection of that system and open mockery of its all too comfortable members (including, I might gently suggest, a certain senior editor at NR). In that I heartily agree with the author's case if not entirely with the author himself. I too am thoroughly sick of self-aggrandizing "leaders" who, after all, were elected to represent, not rule. I do not feel myself "led" by my Congressman; I'd be a lot happier if I even suspected that he is being led by me, which is, after all, that relationship we're attempting to conserve here. I am certainly not "led" by the wretch currently inhabiting the office of President. He has repeatedly expressed his open disdain for me and his intention to reform me. That is not leadership, it's enmity.
Spot on.
The article is a con. We have a dictator now, who rules by decree. Congress rubber stamps his every command, the ones he even bothers to send to them. Most he doesn’t even bother to bother them with, they are issued by his many czars who were never approved by congress, and carried out by bureaucrats who answer only to him.
Actually, its not clear who they answer to, since he doesn’t appear to actually govern at all, he is just a figurehead. He is just the face in front of the camera.
Congress only pretends to have oversight and even that pretense only invites contempt from O and his czars.
The fear is not that Trump will be a dictator, but that he will upset this little arrangement. But by accusing us of what they are already doing, they sucker people in to a fake argument. Trump is not a dictator. Cruz is not a dictator. They are threatening the regime with “forcing” it to obey the rule of law. The regime is bigger than Obama and his czars and the 535 man clown circus that pays his bills. They want what they want and they don’t want anyone who will upset the game board.
If you do not believe in the virtue of a constitutional republic, please find a dictatorship to live in, and save this country from the destructive effects of your ignorant voting habits.
.
>> “The problem is that they will lose if he is not the nominee.” <<
.
Pure Bullshit!
.
O.K.
No sweat.
If we get President Trump, wonder how long it will take the GOPe to start impeachment procedings?
They will never get the chance.
The media support of Trump will end when his usefulness to them ends, which will be long before the general election.
Trump has no statistical avenue to the nomination, and when the actual nominee breaks out from the crowd, media support of Trump the destroyer will disappear along with his face on your TV screen.
Non-infatuated Trump supporters will very soon begin defecting, and begin supporting the apparent nominee.
“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.”
Yes, leadership has been proven to be a bad thing throughout history. The U.S. has already had far too much leadership, and it’s far past time to pick a good non-leader and foster a climate of rudderless non-leadership.
.
Error!
Chile needed Pinochet because they were unarmed and uninformed.
We need to end the dictatorship of the elite.
Hate to rain on your parade 169;
but how long has it been since we were a ‘constitutional republic?’
Franklin was right, we were not informed enough to keep it.
You think any of the current crop of “republicans” in Congress are any different from the Dems? You know, the same “republicans” that gave OBunghole everything he wanted, after we gave them TWO landslide election victories?
Guys like Cruz and Trump seem to be exceptions. Neither one of them would be “dictators”. Read the first part of what I posted so you have the context.
So, you “go get ‘em”. And Merry Christmas.
“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.”
,
Indeed. Leadership has proven to be a bad thing throughout U.S history, and for that matter, all of world history. The U.S. has already had far too much leadership throughout its history, greater than its fair share actually.
And where has all of this leadership gotten us anyway? So what if we are the richest and most powerful country to ever have existed on Earth? We still have problems, even WITH leadership, some might even say BECAUSE of leadership.
Therefore, it’s far past time to pick a good non-leader and foster a climate of rudderless, aimless, random non-leadership, and quit all of this incessant whining about wanting leadership for God’s sake! People simply need to grow up and quit demanding leaders and leadership and get on with their lives without leaders. Besides, everyone would be more equal if there were no leaders; everyone would have an equal say in everything. Without leaders we would have a true democracy.
So, yes, leaders and leadership are clearly a very bad thing because they are anti-democratic by their very nature and it’s high time to abandon this whole ridiculous and unwholesome idea of leaders and leadership.
.
So, then you are surrendering?
The only thing the GOPe cares about is not loosing the gravy train. Riches are determined in Washington by who’s in and who’s out and who you know. If the republican party is taken over by Trump or Cruz, they are well aware that the gravy train is over. Rubio, Christy, Jeb and Hillary will continue the gravy train without interruption. Party politics are irrelevant to the gravy train.
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.