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.
It’s the GOPe who are the dictators, they refuse to honor their campaign promises and they tell us illegals and H1b visa’s are needed when Coulter and Malkin wrote a well documented books disproving the GOPe assertions.
The Gope doesn’t care how many people suffer economic displacement by the Cheap Labor Express. That is dictatorship of the well connected moneyed donor class of the GOPe.
We keep electing GOPe scum, and they do whatever their corporate masters want.
>>— David Harsanyi is ...the author of The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy.
So, he is saying that a dictator is the right choice, but we chose the wrong one.
Fight fire with fire.
I’ve formed my own opinion on what this country needs as a leader and no amount of howling at the wind by political pundits is gonna change it.
One of the scariest things I've heard from a Freeper in a long, long, time.
The President is not, repeat NOT, our parent. He is the temporarily hired administrator of a limited government.
Perhaps they thought that the sterile GOP would never change.
Now both parties are realizing what they have wrought.
And they are scared.
Great article. Bookmarked. The logic is irrefutable, so it wont be refuted. The messenger and the straw man will be refuted.
Not persuasive. Keep fishing.
If this is what we’ve come to,... What can I say? How pitiful. The founders should have turned their guns on the rabble.
*sigh* Just reiterating.
I want a chief executive who can bitch-slap his own branch of government. I want some iron-fisted bastard to do a smashmouth beatdown of the departments, to a tenth of their current size, and eliminate most of them. Somebody with CEO experience.
So, yeah, in that sense...I do.
The headline implies Obama is already the lefts’ own dictator...
See? The first step to solving your problem is admitting you have a problem.
I lose either way because I’m a conservative and Trump is not.
For many years I have wondered what could possibly be more ridiculous than the average white liberal commentator.
Now I know. White conservative commentators in the Trump era.
from article:
“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.”
The clamoring he describes dates back to the election of our second president, and this idiot calls it “un-American”.
from article:
“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?’
It has generally been the American attitude to for a president to aggressively push policies that will preserve the nation. Historically, Americans have never demanded a dictatorship to accomplish this, and believe it can be accomplished without a dictatorship.
from article:
“If a president alone can transform America, then something has gone terribly wrong with the system.”
As Sarah Palin said, the president should seek to preserve American, not transform America. That is why Trump is where he is; he seeks to preserve it.
This guy wants to sound like Paul Revere, but he reasons and writes like Joseph Goebbels. His bottom line: to show your purity, shut up and let your betters choose your president.
Just suppose Trump IS a bit of a dictator. That’s what we’ve had for 7 years now; a dictator; a lying, scurrilous one, who hates the U.S.A. from its Founding.
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!
Wow. Too much egg nog last night?
Dictators are always good in the first person, as in Our Dictator. It’s only in the third person, Their Dictator, that dictators become evil.
Funny how they suddenly discovered that Putin killed reporters. I didn’t see any of those stories when the cackling witch was running to Russia with her “reset” button.
Since what remains of our once republic operates on precedent rather than God's Laws, the Supreme Law of the land, or consent of the governed, the despot Obama will be replaced with another despot in January 2017.
The only possible way to avoid a near-miss with one man rule is for the people to reassert their sovereignty through an Article V state amendments convention.
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.