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.
That’s my Christmas wish
When you wrote that phrase I was about to hit reply and blast you, but then I read the next sentence, which saved me.
I would only disagree to the extent that I think there are greater evils (e.g. Dante's circles of Hell). I am convinced that the most sacred of the ten commandments is the prohibition against bearing false witness, e.g. treachery, those guilty of which Dante consigns to the ninth circuit [e.g. Cain; the Antenor who betrayed Troy to the Greeks and Judas Iscariot].
Some anti-illegal supporters of Trump fear we are becoming a banana republic. Then they support the son of Juan and Evita Peron to make it true.
A dictator of our own to reverse the predations of the kenyan anti-christ dictator is not what we need. Such a “president” will make permanent the impulse toward dictatorship, and we will have finally lost our Republic. We need, rather, a strong constitutiinalist who will begin to restore our system of federalism, of checks and balances, and of the diverse powers and limitations of the various branches of government.
If Trump loves the Constitution how is he a dictator?
a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.
synonyms: autocrat, absolute ruler, despot, tyrant, oppressor, autarch
“a regime that has survived under one dictator for more than forty years”
The dictatorship that BO has been running, where we the people and the constitution has been loathed and religion stomped on, matches the definition
The dictatorship corporate America perpetrates through subversively purchasing republican politicians and through their legislations invade our country with hordes who will not only never care about our country, laws, culture, language or people but are dangerous to us, through violent crime to taking our jobs and upsetting the economy and turning regions into non American enclaves certainti grow. And that’s just the Mexicans to say nothing of m e terrorists
Where trump if taking the country by force, it’s the force of American culture, borders, language and the rule of the law of the constitution
Got logic, NR?
Logic is what it takes to ignore this propaganda. A leader who cares about the future of ourr country might be scary to those who like dictatorships which coddle their priorities, so they’ll project
Anyway, if a leader shares some attributes with a dictator so what? A puppet for a world dominating cult resembles a dictator too, more closely. Ditto a creepy equivocator working for big moneyed corporations intent to destruction on one world government and cheap labor
Just like in 1980 after Jimmy “the failure” Carter. The American people were for better “leaders” and more “leadership”. We had hostages taken by a radical Islamic nation, we were being pushed by other global powers, economic ruin was very visible. That demand for leadership gave us Reagan. Go f’ck yourself national review. We know the power party of demopublics or republicrats want to remain behind the curtain trading our national birthright for 30 peices of silver.
Trump may be no Reagan but this election isn’t over and God willing, the right man for the right time may rise up and lead the silent majority of the true American citizens.
Witness the past 7 years.
Yeah. Over the past week or so the GOPe and its fellow travelers like g will have been in overdrive to stop trump. I guess all that Pac money is going full blast anti him as they believe it is game over if he wins.
I have believed that the republicans sat idly by, while watching Obama destroy the constitution, thinking that they would, one day, have their turn to use his actions as precedent for their own unconstitutional acts.
They only start howling about it when it looks like Trump might win.
If Jeb was in the lead they wouldn’t say a word. They would happily encourage Jeb to follow Obama’s lead and declare blanket amnesty along with anything else to advance the globalist cause.
As far as Trump is concerned, I see no evidence that he would act as a dictator. He doesn’t treat his business that way so why would he change his method of management?
Think about it --
We have a candidate for president of one of the major political parties proclaiming that her greatest perceived enemy is approximately 50% of the citizens of the country she seeks to lead.
You have a figure of an organization supposedly standing for civil liberties (ACLU in Colorado) wanting to put a bullet in the head of those who disagree on political policy.
A majority leader in the Senate, safely using the Senate floor to slander a presidential candidate of the opposite party, then when challenged, calmly states that as a result of his rantings, he is satisfied that slandered candidate "lost".
Members of the supposed "opposition", who in the main were elected to stop the increasing slide into a "fundemental transformation", fully funding all the programs/policies to implement said "transformation".
Every egregious abuse by the current administration is ignored, or subjected to "hearings" that effectively whitewash or make disappear the obvious transgressions against due process and our system of government.
The people of this country are increasingly being threatened, even killed by people who have a desire to destroy us. Instead of addressing the problem, not only do those in government allow more of the same, but seek to increase the import of these individuals--whether of a conscious nature or indirectly due to pressures from business interests.
The author of the piece acknowledges that we have already drifted into a dictatorship. I do not think his fear is further dictatorship, but that someone rising into the chief executive will use recent precedent to upset the comfortable apple cart that our self-styled elites have made for themselves.
I personally do not like the situation. The United States was founded in resistance to ultimate authority wielded over the people by those insulated from the consequences of their actions. Going by the author of this article, maybe it is time to have someone who will take that loaded gun pointed at the American people and turn it on those who have, until now, used it to (quoting a founding document) "eat out their substance".
That's been bothering me greatly for a long time. Anytime something big happens the press seems to always say, "Let's wait for the president to make a statement". Like I'm helpless and frozen with indecision until whoever is the president speaks.
Who did they want instead, Jeb Bush? Yup, he’s the real GOP candidate, or then, Marco Rubio...
Give me that loud mouthed NYer.
Pax money is being pored down the drain. Vacuumed out and eliminated Trump has so much more and now he owns the media He gets exponentially more coverage than any other candidate from any side and the media pays like the Mexicans would pay for the wall
All of humpy jebs hundreds of millions Gone
Admit it, David Harsanyi, you just want your own aristocracy [And it’s the Uniparty]
“Ted Cruz does not make the connection with the average voter.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/ted-cruz-democrats-fears-muslims/2015/12/23/id/706991/
Perhaps this is why Ted doesn’t connect. Perhaps this is why we want Trump. Read the last paragraph carefully and then you tell me. This is pandering to Muslims, period. Peaceful American born Muslims, huh Ted. Okay.....
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm
This is why I think Cruz is just another run of the mill, pandering Washington produced politician. We need Trump.
He’s for Americans first.
Very sad.
They, um, didn't read the article. They just saw that it was anti-Trump and so reflexively denounced it.
Which, in a way, somewhat proves the point of the article.
RE: One 4 year term of ruthless, then he departs,
A dictator depart in just 4 years? What does history teach us?
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.