We have seen over the past seven years the resurgence of the Imperial Presidency, in part because of a totally irresponsible Congress, indolent press, and what I think is a bizarre "personality cult" that celebrates the "prodigal son", "bad boy", "Bubba" thing Bush has going for him still.
Shouldn't this be part of the debate in this campaign? Or are "checks and balances" now as "quaint" as the Geneva Convention standards on torture, etc.? Self-styled "conservative" Andrew Sullivan rightly thinks that it's the most important issue. And it is. We have a President now who acts like a dictator and I bet the public would be relieved if he disappeared yesterday.
But what we are seeing in press coverage, particularly in questions on shows like "Meet the Press" are questions about what the candidate would do, without regard to what Congress might have to say about it.
We've come a long way, baby. Dick Cheney, one of the worst persons in world history, has managed to pervert our system of government, and in some ways, we haven't even noticed.
Tim Russert interviewed Huckabee and Obama yesterday on "MTP". The idea of possibly intervening in Pakistan to get to Al Qaeda leaders there was addressed with both candidates. Huckabee, as usual, was very slick, but where was Obama? He might have suggested that Congress needs to declare war, reminding us of how these undeclared wars tend to cause problems, and that a blank check to the President is a bad idea and was never contemplated by the founders of our nation.
If you think a war is needed, you should have to sell that to Congress and Congress should debate that vigorously. Which they did not.
He could also have explained that a mission to take out Osama and company who may be in Pakistan would not technically be an invasion of that country, and would not necessarily require a declaration of war. There are precedents for such interventions--such as the Israeli raid on Entebbe
in Uganda many years ago. And he could have reminded us that he had recommended standing up to Musharraf months ago.
The campaigns are increasingly being subjected to questions about what the candidate would do, as if he or she has been elected dictator, in given circumstances. And once again, it seems that many of the candidates don't seem to realize that they can dodge such questions by pointing out that the President is not, or should not be a dictator.
Ron Paul also gets these questions about what he would do, as if he could do things by fiat. Maybe because of what Bush/Cheney have done to pervert our system, we have already lost our system of government. Certainly we have if the GOP wins again in 2008.
It's not that difficult to make this point. We've been through this Presidency where the Chief Executive is like a typical CEO, surrounded by "Yes Men"--the "Enron Administration". Military experts who disagreed with the agenda were dismissed; the 9-11 commission was opposed and resisted; even the Iraq Study Group's recommendations were ignored.
Wouldn't a candidate for President do well by running on scaling down the arrogance, and promising to be careful?
What percentage of the current electorate remember what Nixon was up to in the early '70s? "National security", "If the President does it, that means it's not illegal", etc.
That's what led to his imminentimpeachment and resignation. What we have been through here in the past seven years has been much worse, but not that many people have noticed.