The Imperial Presidency
In our ongoing communal efforts to understand the 2016 election cycle, we need to bear in mind the recent history of the republic. That is, we're becoming less of a republic over time and the end state seems as though it's going to be more authoritarian than not. The slope is slippery, and is sliming toward a result that few would desire.
Welcome to chapter 1,568,956 in the drama: "what the hell is up with this Trump thing?" You could put 'Cruz' in that frame as well. Ted Cruz is as anti-American and backward a candidate as any Know Nothing candidate in the 19th century. But somehow, perhaps because he's a sitting Senator (who other Senators despise), Cruz has adopted a 'mainstream' mantle. Good for him.
But what the hell is up with the current roster has a lot to do with the past couple of presidents. That is, the aggrandisement of presidential power. When Trump makes his outlandish, childlike promises of executive action, many if not most of the actions he proposes are not within a president's power to accomplish. Wall building, Muslim shunning, face punching, mass incarcerations, and torture are not things that an American president are allowed to do.
But because Americans have become numbed to presidential overreach, it seems plausible to the lowest-common-denominator Trump voter. The progenitor of most of this was W. Allowing the reptile-brained Neocons to use his administration like their own live-ammo Punch-and-Judy show, W. brought the Imperial Executive to a new low. Instead of using the authority of the office to push through reforms that would actually help Americans, he used it to usher in a dark age of endless war.
The idea od Americans torturing human beings was anathema to the republic for most of our history. At the end of WW II, we prosecuted and, when we got convictions, executed war criminals in Japan and Germany for doing what was equal to or possibly less than the torture we supported under W. In doing so, the voices of reason and democracy in the US were stifled. The political vision of the W. presidency was to perpetuate their own power, no matter what.
And when Obama came to office, he was handed a vast national security apparatus that had become normalized to everyday Americans. When it was revealed that the telecoms were providing W. with live telecom and internet information for millions of Americans and others, it was a big enough deal to force the W. people get the then-quiescent Congress to pass a law sanctioning and retroactively pardoning the behaviour.
Eight years later, we all simply live with the fact that the NSA owns our data. In the new age of global cell phones and a truly World Wide Web, major governments have taken the data. Nixon was a piker to bug a couple of offices and phones. He had nothing on the Obama administration.
Presented with a global data-gathering program that was illegal, secret, and somehow mundane, Obama doubled-down on it. Instead of reintroducing the rule of law which had excited so many voters in 2008, Obama decided to continue the programs, while increasing the illegal drone-murder program that was also in place.
The fundamental fact of America as a republic is that laws are above all people. Nixon's "it's not illegal if the president does it' turned into a rallying cry for the rule of law. The Watergate hearings were a proud moment in American history because they publically asserted that he president was bound by the law of the land, and when he broke the law, Congress was there to do something about it.
But that\same Congressional authority turned into a joke when Newt's boys impeached Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair. Like every other part of governance, the rule of law was turned into a tawdry political weapon to disgrace a president the right didn't like, rather than a tool assert fundamental rules of American justice to the highest officeholder in the country.
It didn't help that Obama was forced to use executive authority to get anything done in his last term as president. The most disgraceful congress in American history not only passed the fewest laws in history, they made their institution into a perpetual dark comedy act by their scorch-earth, knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama tried to do. They forced him to use executive authority extensively, and furthered the advancement of authoritarian rule.
Because if the only way to get anything done in the US government is for a strong president to go below, above, and around the law, we might as well elect a guy who want to do just that. Why go for a conciliator like Obama tried to be when that has proven to be useless?
As it stands today, only a strong executive can succeed against a no-compromise legislature. If only a dictator will do, we may as well elect the guy who wants the job.
Welcome to chapter 1,568,956 in the drama: "what the hell is up with this Trump thing?" You could put 'Cruz' in that frame as well. Ted Cruz is as anti-American and backward a candidate as any Know Nothing candidate in the 19th century. But somehow, perhaps because he's a sitting Senator (who other Senators despise), Cruz has adopted a 'mainstream' mantle. Good for him.
But what the hell is up with the current roster has a lot to do with the past couple of presidents. That is, the aggrandisement of presidential power. When Trump makes his outlandish, childlike promises of executive action, many if not most of the actions he proposes are not within a president's power to accomplish. Wall building, Muslim shunning, face punching, mass incarcerations, and torture are not things that an American president are allowed to do.
But because Americans have become numbed to presidential overreach, it seems plausible to the lowest-common-denominator Trump voter. The progenitor of most of this was W. Allowing the reptile-brained Neocons to use his administration like their own live-ammo Punch-and-Judy show, W. brought the Imperial Executive to a new low. Instead of using the authority of the office to push through reforms that would actually help Americans, he used it to usher in a dark age of endless war.
The idea od Americans torturing human beings was anathema to the republic for most of our history. At the end of WW II, we prosecuted and, when we got convictions, executed war criminals in Japan and Germany for doing what was equal to or possibly less than the torture we supported under W. In doing so, the voices of reason and democracy in the US were stifled. The political vision of the W. presidency was to perpetuate their own power, no matter what.
And when Obama came to office, he was handed a vast national security apparatus that had become normalized to everyday Americans. When it was revealed that the telecoms were providing W. with live telecom and internet information for millions of Americans and others, it was a big enough deal to force the W. people get the then-quiescent Congress to pass a law sanctioning and retroactively pardoning the behaviour.
Eight years later, we all simply live with the fact that the NSA owns our data. In the new age of global cell phones and a truly World Wide Web, major governments have taken the data. Nixon was a piker to bug a couple of offices and phones. He had nothing on the Obama administration.
Presented with a global data-gathering program that was illegal, secret, and somehow mundane, Obama doubled-down on it. Instead of reintroducing the rule of law which had excited so many voters in 2008, Obama decided to continue the programs, while increasing the illegal drone-murder program that was also in place.
The fundamental fact of America as a republic is that laws are above all people. Nixon's "it's not illegal if the president does it' turned into a rallying cry for the rule of law. The Watergate hearings were a proud moment in American history because they publically asserted that he president was bound by the law of the land, and when he broke the law, Congress was there to do something about it.
But that\same Congressional authority turned into a joke when Newt's boys impeached Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair. Like every other part of governance, the rule of law was turned into a tawdry political weapon to disgrace a president the right didn't like, rather than a tool assert fundamental rules of American justice to the highest officeholder in the country.
It didn't help that Obama was forced to use executive authority to get anything done in his last term as president. The most disgraceful congress in American history not only passed the fewest laws in history, they made their institution into a perpetual dark comedy act by their scorch-earth, knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama tried to do. They forced him to use executive authority extensively, and furthered the advancement of authoritarian rule.
Because if the only way to get anything done in the US government is for a strong president to go below, above, and around the law, we might as well elect a guy who want to do just that. Why go for a conciliator like Obama tried to be when that has proven to be useless?
As it stands today, only a strong executive can succeed against a no-compromise legislature. If only a dictator will do, we may as well elect the guy who wants the job.
posted by fiduciary at 9:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home