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.
If Hillary wins, then the country loses. Trump is the only Rep who has crossover appeal. Ted Cruz does not make the connection with the average voter.
Trump has already demonstrated how and why he doesn’t have to be a dictator: he has made his campaign into the proverbial “bully pulpit”. He is already dictating, forcing the executive branch to act by political, ideological and rhetorical means. He shames them into acting by making it clear how ridiculous they are. He pressures them into acting by the sheer numbers of avid patriotic people who come out to cheer him and his ideas. There is great fear in Washington and all establishment circles because he is smashing all their idols and he doesn’t need them one bit.
Oy vey, when will this crap stop?
We are living in an oligarchy where the People are serfs and the Constitution is ignored. His beloved Republican Party is talk only and no one dares actually attempt to stand up to the anti-American policies that are put into action daily.
They at the NR think Hillary is better than Trump. Hillary lies about everything and people around her get trampled on or even put to death. There is No Way Vince Foster killed himself in that park. None of her wrongdoings are even questioned by the media. Trump is not sleeping with the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood and Melania isn’t a rapist and doesn’t fly around with a pedophile slave trader.
National Review is clearly on the oligarchy side. #bloatedhandfedloserlivesmatter
Its Christmas so I will refrain from bad language regarding national review.I will state my views tomorrow morning early, very early.
“So, he is saying that a dictator is the right choice, but we chose the wrong one.”
He is saying that if you demand better leadership and you like your candidate, then you want a dictator.
If you didn’t get the spirit and intent of what I said, it’s your problem.
Yeah, imagine that, some conservative bastard, up there chopping off the ubiquitous tentacles of the status quo bureaucracy... forcing limited government, unlimited freedom, and rights and responsibilities DOWN OUR THROATS!
We can't have that....GO GET EM!
According to a poll that has not been wrong in 100 years (I do not remember name - saw on FR), your next dictator will not be Hillary or the Trumpster, but Bernie ...
From Vlad S. Putin to National Review: please to note. I have made a list of people who met unfortunate circumstances accidentally after they displeased me very much. Then I made same list, for those who displeased Hillary clintona very much. I can proudly say my list not nearly as long as that from Hillary.
No Thanks Gentlemen.
This is why there is such a visceral reaction, even from supposedly reliable conservative outlets: they fear someone that will fearlessly use constitutional executive powers to clear away all the corruption, patronage and cronyism in Washington, then, I’m all for it.
"Lucius (Titus) Quinctius Cincinnatus. (b. c.519 BC) In 458 BCE (according to tradition), Cincinnatus, who had been consul in 460 BCE, was plowing his fields when messengers arrived to tell him he had been named dictator to defend the city against the Aequi and the Volscians.
Lots more where the above comes from. Sometimes you really do need a dictator, you just need to be really careful who you make dictator.
will Trump murder rich Lowery et al?
did or is vlad teaching him how?
This guy wants to sound like Paul Revere, but he reasons and writes like Joseph Goebbels.
********************************************
Yes, he’s a faithful minion of The Ministry of Propaganda.
They are paid by The Cheap Labor Express.
” If it takes a dictator to save this country from what Obama the dictator has done, then I’m all for it.”
That about sums it up for me too.
The damage that Obama has done can only be undone by someone who’s willing to use the same tactics. Of course he will have a much rougher time given that the propaganda organs will all be against him. I’m hopeful though because he has shown quite a talent at eviscerating the media.
The other hurdle he will have to overcome is the courts. The left will try to stop him by constantly suing him.
Hitler (yeah, I know, Godwin's law, but please bear with me) came to power because the ruling classes of Germany utterly discredited themselves. Germans turned to increasingly radical parties like the Spartacists (Communists) and various flavors of Nationalists (which eventually coalesced into the National Socialist German Workers’ Party - NSDAP).
In a similar fashion, the GOP Establishment has utterly discredited itself. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they have more in common with the Democrats and the Left than they do with the Conservative base.
This being the case, what did they think was going to happen?
The Donald, assuming the mantle of a dictator?
The Donald is a patriot, no dispute about that. And he has a suitable large ego to assert that patriotism in a bigger-than-life projection on the outside facade of the Trump Tower.
“Dictator” is what we have NOW. At one time, “dictator” was thought to be a “good thing”, as recently as the New Deal years under FDR. In fact, there was even a Studebaker automobile marque called the Dictator, a big old Buick-sized vehicle, but it disappeared a little before the outbreak of the Second World War, renamed the Commander, sort of the middle-line.
>>He is saying that if you demand better leadership and you like your candidate, then you want a dictator.
Sadly, at this stage in our highly polarized nation, that is a little bit true:
If we elect a strong Leftist, she will push the Right back hard.
If we elect a strong Right-Winger, he will push the Left back hard.
If we elect a GOProgressive, the Left will push the Right back and the GOProgressive will flail his arms impotently.
If we elect a weak Democratic Socialist, the Left will push the Right back.
The president wipes his ass with the Constitution for two terms and Trump MAY be dangerous. Okay.
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.