[Sean] Wilentz argues that, after achieving “historic health care reform” and an economic stimulus, it was only in 2015, after withstanding four years of an opposition Congress and failing to make a “grand bargain” with the other side, that Obama shed his “postpartisan illusion” to circumvent the House and Senate by vigorous use of executive orders.
In the same issue of the WaPo, there are many opinion pieces fretting over Donald Trump’s potential abuse of power. Although I disagree with Trump on many substantive issues, I am not going to get on the bandwagon of attacking his authoritarian personality.
I do not doubt that Trump has authoritarian tendencies. Or that he is a narcissist. Or that he is overconfident in his own views. But all of those qualities are present in Barack Obama. And yet when he acts on these authoritarian tendencies, the narrative becomes “vigorous use of executive orders.”
I have not changed my views from a few weeks ago. I will vote for Gary Johnson. But if the media continue to ignore the most respectable ticket on the ballot, then I hope Trump wins. Again, this is not because I agree with him on substance. It is because I believe that as long as we are going to have an arrogant, over-confident, self-centered President, I would rather have the institutional forces of the left arrayed against executive power than in support of it.
Your last sentence is a beautiful summation of how many many people feel.
+1 Arnold for Chair, Council of Economic Advisors
Does that hold true for an arrogant, over-confident, self-centered congress? Their approval rating is almost always worse though institutionally they are usually limited to blocking.
The president is one person so the cult of personality that each one has enjoyed ensures that their rating will always be higher than that of Congress, which is a collection of people representing both parties. John Q. Voter can always blame the other party when he answers the Congressional approval survey.
I would go further. Clinton will be both more willing to use executive power and effective at consolidating more power in the white house, all while the media, Congress and a larger share of the American people treat her presidency as if it’s business as usual.
Trump will bring attention to presidential overreach in a way no one else could, he’ll probably be a 1 term president (I think Clinton will as well) and I must grudgingly admit a Democrat challenger to trump will more likely decent than a republican challenger to Clinton.
Unfortunately, the merciless assault by the left and the media (but I repeat myself) has made Trump necessary. The “normal” Republicans are too easily cowed by charges of racism, sexism, homophobia etc. to sustain the counterattack. Best option now is to get behind Trump and try to steer him in a useful direction.
Someone should whisper in his ear that we gain nothing (and lose a lot) by continuing to have Departments of Education, Transportation, Labor and Energy. Better for the economy and we would save money, too.
He will get to Obama, too. Take a look at him sputtering in Elkhart -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSxo9-Z5Ki0&app=desktop
Disable his teleprompter and it becomes clear that he has nothing substantial upstairs. I think this will just be the start of it as Trump gets under his skin and steals the spotlight that Obama thinks should be his.
> I believe that as long as we are going to have an arrogant, over-confident, self-centered President, I would rather have the institutional forces of the left arrayed against executive power than in support of it.
I love this sentiment, but is there any reason to think the institutional forces of the left would be arrayed against executive power rather than just arrayed against Trump? I suspect 99% of effort would be towards regaining power, with effort towards restraining power consigned to the fringe. Or am I missing a substantial effort overlap between these two aims?
I don’t hope Trump wins under any circumstances, but my fanciful maybe-it-could-turn-out-alright scenario involves his foreign policy seeking to maximize the value of his hotel chain, which would certainly be preferable to a foreign policy seeking to maximize U.S. power.
The measures Congress and the bureaucracy would take against a President Trump would constitute precedents that would affect the status of future Presidents–at least, that’s the hope.
“But all of those qualities are present in Barack Obama.”
They have been present in every president to some degree. Trump is just way off the scale compared with everyone else.
Steve
Were it not for the drastic consequences for our country, I would wish that you got your reward of a Trump presidency. He is a bully who has lived his professional life in an arena where that is acceptable. His latest attack on a Federal Judge demonstrates conclusively his utter lack of competence to be president. Your assertion to the contrary only reveals your own lack of judgement
Doofus, the alternative is Hillary
She actually makes lists of people to punish when she gets the chance.
Sorry, I take back the “doofus.” I might need it later.
Sure, Trump is a bullly. But again I ask, point to an example where he has ACTUALLY denigrated a significant portion of voting Americans. Seriously, give it a shot. He mostly attacks individuals (and uses non-citizen groups as vehicles to troll his opponents). E.g.,
Trump attacks a Hispanic journalist (who is a known attention whore and a jerk btw and may be at least inadvertently I’m on the gag) in a way he knows his opposition will cry racism which will bolster his base. He will have to dig his way out of these during the general election, and we’ll see if he can.
But Hillary’s brand of bullying and stupid can’t be fixed. Go look up the interview with Matt Lauer where Hillary issues a thinly veiled threat to women who come forward against Bill. This is her natiure. She is also trained as a lawyer bully. She threatens use of power against the weak. She is an instinctive reactionary to anyone she perceives as an enemy, even her friends . Listen to her lie and seethe at the NPR interviewer who reasonably asks her about her flip-flop on gay marriage. NPR! She bullies a journalist. A democrat bullies an NPR joutnalist! OMG!
This behavior sounds a lot like Trump on the surface, except that he is far more calculated. Her only saving grace is that she is so incompetent in her nefariousness fails. But her well-earned paranoia makes her do really stupid things.
My response is Trump obviously reflects your values including grade school name calling. Case closed
People don’t realize for some reason how bad Obama was. Hillary won’t be as bad as he is, I suspect. She just isn’t that ambitious or think she is the second-coming of LeBron James. She just has Lindon Johnson level of evil goals. And the good news ablution Trump is he doesn’t really mean anything he has said. It is a toss up, except for the perennially broken issue of SCOTUS noms.
Btw, the media has come around somewhat on being skeptical of Hillary. She doesn’t have the persuasion skills of Trump or the leeway Obama was given, and I’d she is given a gift like a terrorist attack, she won’t know what to do with it like Cheney did.
So, it is not so dire to start buying into the arguments not to vote Gary Johnson, as Arnold suggests.
Why doesn’t the media or the American people know how bad Obama is? If he were running a third term, at this point would win by a higher margin than 2012. (Although lower than 2008.) In terms of the Reagan “Are you better off than 4 or 8 years?” I bet an very high percentage of people would say Yes. And additionally what are the huge foreign policy blunders of Obama. I know the Middle East is a mess but most voters know this and figure there is little any President could do.
“It is because I believe that as long as we are going to have an arrogant, over-confident, self-centered President, I would rather have the institutional forces of the left arrayed against executive power than in support of it.”
This is absolutely brilliant and I could not agree more. Trump is so bad not only will the Left work to prevent his agenda, I think most of the Right will too.
Trump has an agenda?
A terrible Trump won’t be as bad as a terrible Hillary, like your last sentence said.
It’s Trump plus Reps in Congress, vs Hillary plus Dems in Congress … plus gov’t bureaucracy, plus Dem press-media, plus Dem academia, plus Dem NGOs.
I’m not the only one rooting for Trump to cause some discomfort to the other Dem elites.