Great line. Does anyone believe it? We elected a national savior from the left in 2008, now we’re weighing whether to elect one from the right. The guy making this point has expanded the powers of the presidency beyond even what George W. Bush was able to do, from intervening in Libya’s civil war without congressional approval to striking a nuclear deal with Iran without Senate ratification to issuing an unconstitutional executive amnesty of millions of illegals. He ordered a delay in the implementation of ObamaCare’s employer mandate anddidn’t even pretend that he had the legal authority to do it. His second term has encouraged an insane yet seemingly widespread belief on the left that when Congress takes too long to act on the president’s priorities, he gains some sort of additional legal power to act in their absence. And he’s done all of this with the near-total acquiescence of members of his party, who believe, as partisans do, that their guy can be trusted with extraordinary power because his intentions are good. We do look to be ruled, as long as it’s our own side that’s doing the ruling. Given the intensity of partisan divisions, in fact, I’d say most of the public prefers a ruler. How else are you going to keep those jerks across the aisle in check?
But O got away with this because Trump is such a crass authoritarian (a “homegrown demagogue” as Obama put it, lumping him in with fascists, communists, and jihadists) that it’s irresistible to play the high-minded small-d democrat when drawing contrasts with him. That’s a decent play for anti-Trump votes of various stripes. But what about the great mass that cares less about who’s a demagogue than who’s going to bring back jobs? Byron York is right:
No comments:
Post a Comment