Americans Don't Want a Dictatorship, but They're Creating One Anyway
Too many people think democracy works only if they get to dominate their opponents.

Whether a glass is half full or half empty is a matter of perspective. The same can be said about the half of Americans who oppose the idea of allowing presidents to rule unilaterally—an exercise of monarchical power favored by only a fifth of us. I like to look on the bright side, so I take it as a win that those opposing unrestrained executive power far outnumber those who favor it. Still, it would be better if, in a republic established two and a half centuries ago, more than half the population would commit to the proposition that turning the country into a dictatorship would be bad.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Opponents of Dictatorship Outnumber Supporters
"About half of the public think it would be a bad idea if the next president is able to act on important policy issues without the approval of Congress or the courts," the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research reports of the results of a survey of 1,282 adults conducted March 21-25. "Only 21% think it would be a good thing, and about 30% think it's neither good nor bad."
In the poll, 48 percent overall oppose unilateral presidential rule, including 58 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of Republicans. The 21 percent favoring the idea include 17 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of Republicans. Support for unrestrained executive power rises to 39 percent among Democrats in the case of a Biden win in November, and to 57 percent of Republicans if Trump wins.
Interestingly, the AP-NORC results are nearly identical to those found by the University of Virginia's Center for Politics in 2021. At the time, pollsters reported "roughly 2 in 10 Trump and Biden voters strongly agree it would be better if a 'President could take needed actions without being constrained by Congress or courts.'" Among Biden voters, 22 percent strongly agreed with the idea, compared to 19 percent of Trump voters (over 40 percent of both at least "somewhat agreed" with the idea of an unrestrained presidency).
In 2020, the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group noted: "Over three annual surveys, about 24 percent of Americans say that a 'strong leader who doesn't have to bother with Congress and elections' is a good way to govern a country."
The good news here is that surveys find a pretty consistent minority of only one-fifth to one-quarter of Americans favor throwing off this whole separation of powers thing in favor of dictatorship. It's a fraction of the population that seems firm in its batty beliefs but doesn't appear to be growing.
The bad news is that the citizens of a 250-year-old democratic republic are so lukewarm about the country's system of government that only about half of them can summon up opposition to the idea of unilateral rule. That almost a third of survey respondents think unilateral presidential rule is "neither good nor bad" isn't a ringing endorsement of the system. Then again, most don't think the system works.
The System Isn't Working if My Side Isn't Winning
"About half of the public, regardless of party identification, say the system of checks and balances dividing power among the president, Congress, and the courts is not working well these days," adds AP-NORC. Only around one in ten say it is working extremely or very well.
That reflects frustration with institutions that are in the hands of political opponents. Among Republicans, 46 percent say the presidency has too much power (16 percent of Democrats agree), while 58 percent say federal agencies (currently under the control of Democratic President Joe Biden) have too much power (20 percent of Democrats agree). Fifty-eight percent of Democrats think the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, has too much power (25 percent of Republicans agree). At 37 percent and 38 percent respectively, nearly identical numbers of Democrats and Republicans say the divided Congress is too powerful.
In January, Gallup reported that "a new low of 28% of U.S. adults are satisfied with the way democracy is working in the country."
That matches a separate AP-NORC report, published April 3, that "only 3 in 10 think democracy in the United States is functioning well, while about half believe it is a poorly functioning democracy."
"Typically, partisans have been more satisfied with the way democracy is working when a president from their preferred party has been in office," Gallup added.
It's not unreasonable to interpret such polling results as evidence that too many Americans think the system is working well only when it's under the control of their political faction. Unless they can jam their preferred laws and policies down the throats of neighbors with different ideas, they call the system a failure and look for alternatives. Fortunately, only a small minority are willing to go so far as to support dumping the whole system in favor of an actual dictatorship by their chosen el jefe. Unfortunately, the presidency is creeping in the direction of satisfying that minority.
The Presidency Is Already Almost an Elective Monarchy
"Over the past several decades, as our politics took on a quasi-religious fervor, we've been running a dangerous experiment: concentrating vast new powers in the executive branch, making 'the most powerful office in the world' even more powerful," Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute and author of The Cult of the Presidency, wrote for Reason's May issue. "Fundamental questions of governance that used to be left to Congress, the states, or the people are now settled, winner-take-all, by whichever party manages to seize the presidency."
Only a small minority of Americans actually favor turning the presidency into an elective monarchy, but we're all getting it anyway. That's because many people ask far too much of a government that was originally designed to be limited in its role and hobbled by checks and balances. As the most recognizable face of that government, they expect the president to fulfill unreasonable expectations—and grant ever-greater power to the position so current officeholders can try.
"Recent presidents have deployed their enhanced powers to impose forced settlements on highly contested, morally charged issues on which Americans should be free to disagree," notes Healy.
A lot of our political discourse focuses on the specific flaws of the individuals who vie for high office, as if ridding ourselves of Orange Mussolini or Bumbling Brandon will resolve America's political problems. But the danger lies less in the candidates than in voters who use politicians as vehicles for their awful expectations and frankly authoritarian agendas.
It's encouraging that a majority of Americans don't want to live under a dictatorship. If only they'd stop acting in ways that are bound to bring one about.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Jews are committing a holocaust in Gaza. This video demonstrates how they carried it out.
It is the best compilation of evidence to date that October 7 was an inside job coordinated by Israel.
https://richardgage911.substack.com/p/new-documentary-on-gaza-october-7
The video proves that Israel, funded, coordinated and enabled the October 7 attacks.
It shows that Israel opened the gate to welcome trucks carrying Hamas through the wall.
It shows how Israel not only ignored repeated warnings from their many surveillance sources but withdrew all defences from the wall and emptied their military bases just hours before the attack and had ZERO response for more than 5 hours.
It shows and proves that the IDF attacked the concert goers and the kibbutz’s with Apache helicopters and tanks.
It shows that they sacrificed dozens of their IDF forces to blame Hamas.
It shows that only handfuls of Hamas soldiers wandered for hours through the evacuated areas looking for soldiers to fight but finding none.
It shows that the hostages that were taken by Hamas said they were treated well.
It shows that Israel has funded Hamas with billions in cash in suitcases in the backs of cars.
So if anyone questions the veracity of ALL THIS, watch the video and become informed.
You’re always welcome to try to refute anything you see. But you won’t because you can’t.
Good morning fag.
Go over there and help.
There has to be a hospital he can stand on top of to protect.
But Reichsführer Misek wants to shoot Jews, not stand on top of some dumb hospital.
It’s always a beautiful day to share the truth that can’t be refuted.
Like Nazi gassing Jews.
But it’s not really like that at all.
So you think Israel fired 1000s of rockets at itself?
Tatsuya Ishida over at CoProsperityFest Sturmer sure thinks so.
Where tf have u been bro? We’ve known since day one that they were firing on the concert goers.
Yes idf killed their own citizens.
Look up Hannibal doctrine. That’s what they implemented that day. Get with the program dude I can’t believe someone so ill informed about a subject can go out of his way to stick his foot in his mouth.
What we heard in the mainstream media was that in the confusion, the IDF shot a few Israelis along with Hamas.
What we didn’t hear, except now in this video is that Apache helicopters targeted fleeing peace concert goers and repeatedly reloaded and returned to kill more. Over 300. There’s leaked Apache footage in the video I provided.
We also didn’t know that IDF tanks, not Hamas destroyed the kibbutz’s intentionally killing hundreds of Israelis.
As stated in the video, this is an unimaginable level of evil demonstrated by Israel.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-does-video-show-israel-helicopter-shoot-festival-goers-1842754
From the link
“”However, the footage is not of Israeli Apache helicopters firing on civilians at the Supernova music festival. It was posted on October 9, 2023, by the Israel Defense Forces, two days after the attack at the Supernova festival.””
“There is no evidence the IDF attacked Supernova festival goers, either from survivor accounts or from timelines recreated using footage and other details from the festival. OSINT investigators have also provided compelling evidence that links locations in the Apache footage to airstrikes in Gaza, three miles from where the Supernova festival was held.”
The evil fuck has been refuted innumerable times. He screams that it’s lying propaganda and then the very next day he’s strutting back and forth saying that he’s never been refuted.
He’s just an
antisemiticmore antisemitic version of Sqrlsy.Newsweek, in the US “checked the facts” with the IDF, who carried out the attacks and is currently on trial for committing genocide.
While the video at 42 minutes, references Israeli newspapers who interviewed the actual Apache pilots who admitted to firing on who they knew were Israeli peace concert goers, and repeatedly rearming to attack them again and again.
If people haven’t watched this video, they need to, to consider themselves informed.
Except there’s plenty of video of Hamas soldiers killing civilians.
Misek probably thinks Steven Spielberg faked the whole thing.
Last time I checked it was the Hamas terrorist pigs who kidnapped, rape and murdered Israeli citizens on 7 October.
Hopefully, the IDF will hunt down these Hamas terrorist, kill them and then bury them all with their fellow pigs.
Jews are responsible for 76 years of apartheid, oppression, terrorism and crimes against humanity since the theft of Palestine in 1948.
You can’t comprehend the true grit of the Palestinian people.
The video demonstrates that Israel coordinated, funded and enabled October 7 as an excuse to commit genocide in Gaza.
Jews, not Palestinians, are on trial in the international court of justice for committing genocide.
Educate yourself, watch the video.
It’s already obvious that it can’t be refuted.
Why do I get the feeling that all the things you accuse Israel of doing, don’t really bother you, when you aren’t raving about Israel?
Why are you delusional?
Who cares?
The international court of justice, I’m impressed, we all know europe just loves Jews.
Yes, and Jews are demonstrating why in Gaza.
What happened to you anyway? Did a Jew buttfuck your mom, and 9 months later she crapped you out onto the pavement?
Your anonymous coward name suits you.
As if filth like you are entitled to anything.
Beat it bootlicker
It must be hateful to be you
Why do you think that sharing the truth that can’t be refuted is hateful?
Are you a liar? A Jew, Kol Nidre boy?
Well, we all know you’re an authentic retard.
How does it make you feel knowing that you can’t refute anything that I say?
I can’t refute a paranoid schizophrenic either; what’s your point?
Hahaha. Sure you can’t.
You know, the meds might quiet the voices.
The unimaginable evil demonstrated by Israel, Jews, Zionists today has always existed hidden in plain sight. Obfuscated by lies. It’s why Jews have always been persecuted by every nation they’ve ever thrived in.
The curtain has been pulled aside and no amount of propaganda or coercion can change what the world is recognizing about Israel and all of it’s enablers.
In the video the question is asked, “what (coercion) does Israel have on so many world leaders that they not only ignore Israeli atrocities but support them?”.
The answer indicates that the Rothschild empire that controls the financial economies of both the US and UK, and their allies have always used their immense power and corruption to achieve their selfish desires like the theft of Palestine to achieve a Jewish ideological cabbalistic prophecy. Follow the money.
^This will be Chemjeff in another few weeks. JFree and mtrueman are already there.
What Jews? Oh, you mean Netanyahu’s Likud government, right?
Jews in other countries have no power over Netanyahu’s government, except for the few AIPAC lobbyists.
Your gross anti-semitism is showing again, Nazi.
When the Jews of Israel who elected Netanyahu for 16 years drag him kicking and screaming to the gallows, for committing this genocide along with all his ministers, they might be forgiven, maybe.
Bibi gonna swing.
Despotism is to be most dreaded
in these democratic times,but its ugly
head can appear out of seemingly nowhere.
I should have loved freedom,I believe in
all times,but in this the times we live in
I am absolutely ready to worship it.
de Toqueville
1833
If you want that then the works and myth of FDR and New Deal defeating the Great Depression must be utterly destroyed. This, along with Wilson and his War Socialism, is where the ideological rot regarding separation of powers and extensive executive powers took firm hold and became the default position of the politcal and journalistic classes.
What the major parties offer is Socialism Heavy or Socialism Light with a Theocratic flavor. We don’t have a No Socialism option. We are going the way of Europe where some degree of Socialism is assumed, the argument is over how much Socialism is the right amount.
There is a Libertarian option in all 50 states, but it is widely ignored, except by 2 to 3% of people, who are curmudgeons like me mostly.
It’s like being locked in a prison with 3 doors: The first door has rotating knives and will flay you if you try to get out. The second door has a flamethrower triggered to burn you if you try to get out. The third door is wide open, but people will look at you funny if you choose the third door. So everyone picks one of the first two doors.
The catch is, everyone in the prison has to vote on which door to try.
I like your metaphor quite a bit. I would make one change, that you may not agree with. I see the Republican Party as pretty useless, but not quite as bad as the Democratic Party. They both suck, but one will bring about economic collapse and/or WWIII more quickly. To be sure, both parties will effect the end of this republic as we know it. So I would change your metaphor to the following:
Door one has rotating knives that flay you slowly, door two has rotating knives that flay you quickly, and door three stays the same as you wrote it.
Stories need a protagonist. A single individual that will fix things in the form of a President, fits squarely with fantasy stories of benevolent and heroic kings or queens. Even religion places the might of God (or gods or “fate”) behind chosen saviors. Reality doesn’t work that way. History focuses on major figures mostly because history is remembered and people are motivated to study it when it is told like a story. FDR, Washington, Lincoln, and other Presidents that are admired made hugely consequential decisions, but they didn’t do so without a lot of discussion and debate within their circles of cabinet members, friends, and even with their antagonists. And then, those decisions needed to be implemented by many people that history doesn’t remember or record.
To reduce the power of the executive, we do need to break the myth of the political leader as protagonist. It isn’t enough to reframe specific Presidents in less glorious terms.
I would say FDR is based, not simply on a single leader, but that society should be beneficiently directed by government empowered experts {the Brain Trust}, rather than the informal decisions of private people in spontaneous organizations like markets.
FDR was also felt he was playing back a nation that had sacrificed much for WWII.
When the words oppression and presidents are in the same sentence, no one beats FDR. Forced women into factories, Japanese into camps. Rationing of goods.
FDR was dead before the war ended, how could he pay them back? He did most of his damage in the 8 years before the war.
Damn strait.
These boys is my brain trust.
Democratic government is based on the mistaken notion that you can vote yourself more in benefits than you will get in costs.
“”Democratic government is based on the mistaken notion that you can vote yourself more in benefits””
I kinda of think it ends there. They don’t concern themselves with the cost. I base that off the actions of my local and state government. (NYC, NY).
Correct. The increase in Presidential power tracks with the increase in power of Congress.
The rot stated with the expansion of the commerce clause powers to a ridiculous extent. Apparently Wickard v Filburn was not crazy enough; so Congress, the President, and SCOTUS gave us the PPACA and NFIB v Sebelius. Congress claiming the authority to regulate our economic decisions is beyond the pale. I would not want to live in a dictatorship, nor in a representative government without limits on its powers. Does it matter if the people are oppressed by a single actor or by the combined efforts of all three branches?
Does it matter if the people are oppressed by a single actor or by the combined efforts of all three branches?
Lots of people don’t consider it oppression if their team is in charge. It’s only oppression when the other team does it.
Well, we can hope that the author is correct in that only about 20% want oppression, but my guess is that figure is somewhat higher when government is offering some shiny new thing in return for tightening the leash.
This whole article is framed as if they aren’t trying to REDUCE all powers of the elected. That’s what’s been going on since trump. If anything we should say we do want unconstrained decisions to be made by our elected – that’s the one thing we’ve got on our side – why reduce those powers?
Despotism is to be most dreaded
in these democratic times,but its ugly
head can appear out of seemingly nowhere.
I should have loved freedom,I believe in
all times,but in this the times we live in
I am absolutely ready to worship it.
de Toqueville
1833
Winners write the history books.
This has always been such an asinine phrase. There are numerous contrarian history books on any topic, and any era.
On FDR and the new deal, see John Flynn, Amity Shlaes, Burton Folsom, etc.
This has always been such an asinine phrase.
Sarc has always been asinine..
But the winners pick which books are used in school.
True. For example, “1900, or The Last President” by the author of Little Baron Trump novels, was a desperate, panicky attack on burgeoning People’s Party Bryanism irrigated by Altrurian looters, righteously angry suffragists and imbibers of beer. Their spoiler votes and return of Cleveland liberalism terrified girl-bullying boodlers and Blue-law bluestockings alike. The resulting book is short and free at Gutenberg and sold elsewhere. In it you find the paranoid prognostications aped by recent decades of GOP garglings.
Jeebus. Is it too many meds or not enough? And where’s my Comstock reference?
If only there was such a thing as allowing subsidiarity. But can’t have that, either. It must always devolve to the individual… ironically, making the Central government more powerful, not less.
Support for unrestrained executive power rises to 39 percent among Democrats in the case of a Biden win in November, and to 57 percent of Republicans if Trump wins.
The fact that a majority of Republicans wholeheartedly endorse a Trump dictatorship isn’t a surprise to anyone who reads these comments.
Support for unrestrained executive power rises to 39 percent among Democrats in the case of a Biden win in November, and to 57 percent of Republicans if Trump wins.
If this were an accurate sampling of the electorate it could be explained by noting that the Ds already have most everything they want (and that they want to force on others) whereas the Rs feel the need to correct for that in the most efficient (but dangerous) way.
I personally don’t believe the tidbit as described and am skeptical of the wording of the poll questions.
If this were an accurate sampling of the electorate it could be explained by noting that the Ds already have most everything they want (and that they want to force on others) whereas the Rs feel the need to correct for that in the most efficient (but dangerous) way.
I still find it sickening, but not surprising in the slightest, that a majority of Republicans want Trump to not be restrained by Congress or the Court. I think that a lot of it is motivated by hatred and a lust for vengeance. Mostly because that’s what I see in these comments.
It is exactly what Republican rejects are sent here to do. Picture a fertile and attractive female economist curious about a party based on Ayn Rand’s writings visiting the unmuted anarco-commentariat. Now try to imagine that same woman deigning to date any male braying “kill the Fed,” “enslave pregnant women” and “ban all drugs!” Tarbrushing-by-association even sprays its stench on men opposed to overregulation or unduped by hysterical warmunism. If women cross the street to avoid libertarians and objectivists, you’ve got these MAGAts to thank.
There’s no such thing as a female libertarian. I thought everyone knew that.
The hottest takes from 2011.
Don’t ever change.
Hank, you are wayyy too hung up on this boy/girl thing. It’s weird.
True. But the infiltraitors reveal how desperately nationalsocialist collectivists are to suppress libertarian spoiler votes. John Sherman wrote of this after being sent to Louisiana to oust Tilden at gunpoint and install prohibitionist Hayes. This was 3 years after book-burning prohibitionist girl-bulliers used postal monopoly Comstockism to enslave women and wreck the economy. He struggled valiantly to rally Prohibition Party voters behind Republican grafters, keenly aware that growing small parties cast leveraged, law-changing votes.
Ah, there it is. Comstock. Thanks!
The problem is the failure of Congress to do its Constitutional job. Rather than compromise the Congress fails to act leaving the President to act by executive authority with only the Supreme Court to check the action. The Constitution is written with three government branches, the question is can you maintain a democracy with only two branches working.
Not passing legislation is not doing nothing.
Not passing legislation is them doing something.
Just because you think a law is needed does mean it is.
Congress does not have to pass legislation, but they are responsible for voting on legislation. They chose not to vote and that is my problem.
“”They chose not to vote and that is my problem.””
Do the rules allow them to not vote?
“Congress failing to act” is usually rhetorical spin by a president meaning Congress is not rubberstamping the policy he wants, excusing his attempt to rule by diktat.
It is up there with “market failure” as dishonest propaganda by authoritarians.
Congress failing to act is more than rhetorical spin, it seems to be the norm. If it were merely that Congress fails to act in accordance with the President that would be acceptable. But Congress choses to not even take votes to allow member to have cover.
Tuccille should know how Ayn Rand labored to replace Nietzsche’s errors with the code of values American philosophy academicians were working on, even as Christian National Socialist collectivists were tried and hanged. Foremost were his abhorrence of democracy and glee at the the thought of killing off “enemies.” Theodore Roosevelt and Kaiser Wilhelm were lifted by that tide, and both bent the superstition of the ignorant masses to their Will. We are seeing a repetition of what prevailed from the 1880s to WW1.
Hank, you are always “seeing repetitions”, dude.
Are you aware of what year it is?
My $0.02
The root problem is that the federal government in general has become far too powerful.
The more powerful the government is, the higher the stakes are as to who is in control.
This rot goes back to at least FDR, if not even further.
A core feature of the problem in my opinion is the creation of agencies with both rule making and enforcement power.
If I were designing it, I would split the agencies. Executive agencies with enforcement power under the control of the President, but rule making would belong to separate legislative agencies under the direct (and exclusive ) control of Congress.
I see no way to reverse the trend.
However I think at this point, one of two outcomes is inevitable, either the existing government collapses under it’s own weight or there will eventually be a violent revolution. The only question is how long until it all blows up or crashes and burns.
I do not think that there is any possibility of fixing the system from within. We are already past the point of no return. The system has become fundamentally broken to the point that the only solution is to start over from scratch.
We need the Argentina chainsaw guy.
How is that going, by the way?
Don’t like chainsaws, eh?
Lol. Wuss.
Unhappy is the land in need of heroes.
-Bertolt Brecht
You’d obviously quote a degenerate Marxist.
I think you are missing that rule making is really part of enforcement. The problem is that Congress often makes laws too broad and then relies on agencies in the executive branch to make rules for enforcing the laws. Were Congress to write narrower more defined laws the agencies would not need to write as many rules. There is no need to redo the system, we just need Congress to step up and do its job. Congress has the power it choses not to use it.
Were Congress to write narrower more defined laws the agencies would not need to write as many rules.
If they did that then they would bear the responsibility for specific rules and face consequences in elections. When rules are written by unaccountable bureaucrats, legislators are able to throw up their hands and say “Not my fault, sorry, and there’s nothing I can do about it.”
Many laws — state, federal, foreign — are written in the form, “You’re not allowed to do X unless you have a license.” And then they set up an agency for licensing, and describe the rationale for granting the license in terms that can’t help but be broad enough to require a lot of discrimination by the licensing agency, and whatever decisions the agency makes can be described as “faithfully executing” the law whether it’s one way or the other.
I would like to acknowledge a difference between a rule and a law.
A rule can be something setup for the agency to follow, like a given workflow or what and what not can be done. Only applies to people working for that agency. Then there is law. This is something that you and I could be arrested or fined for no compliance.
Agencies can make rules, they cannot make law. Every law an agency makes should be struck down. The problem is the blurring of the lines between rule and law.
And of course partisans applaud agencies making law when they see the elected officials failing to do so. And many of these people think they know what democracy is.
Good but rules do reach outside the agency and affect the public. Congress makes laws and agencies make rules that are benchmarks for enforcing those laws. Congress says workplaces must be safe and delegates that responsibility to OSHA. OSHA then make a rule that for a worker to be safe at a construction site the worker must have a helmet on. Failure to wear a helmet, means the worker is not safe and the law have been violated.
How much jail time will I serve for not wearing the helmet?
One wonders when was the last time–if ever–this Trump-salver read the Volstead Act: https://libertrans.blogspot.com/
Every part of that thick and detailed usurpation is reproduced mutatis mutandis in FDA, DEA, Customs, and Transport Sozialist Arbeiterpartei rules and regulations. Even the 1873 Comstock law requirements stare smugly back at anyone who bothers to read customs regulations while goaded like livestock through airport terminal groping pens.
“I think you are missing that rule making is really part of enforcement.”
I’m not missing it, I fundamentally disagree with it. The assertion that rule making is inherently part of enforcement is bullshit.
Ok, Congress passes a law that says consumer must be treated fairly and that if you’re selling something by weight the scale must be accurate. How do you ensure the scale is accurate without rules?
“” How do you ensure the scale is accurate without rules?””
I can have it tested with any rule requiring me to do so. The rule is not required to ensure the scale is accurate.
You can make an argument that it’s easy to victimize people via theft and the rule is an attempt to prevent criminal behavior. However, theft is already a crime. The agency didn’t make theft a crime via rule making. Congress did.
We just need an amendment that prohibits government coercion.
“the federal government in general has become far too powerful.”
You think the 20 year fiasco in Afghanistan is a show of power? It shows weakness, rather. The pathetic response to covid? It shows confusion and fear, not power.
“The more powerful the government is, the higher the stakes are as to who is in control.”
The stakes have never been lower. That’s why nobody serious is interested in becoming president. We have two incompetent pensioners to choose from.
“The only question is how long until it all blows up or crashes and burns.”
All in good time. Wait until people are starving. Then the fun will begin.
“The system has become fundamentally broken to the point that the only solution is to start over from scratch”
Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?
-Bertolt Brecht
“You think the 20 year fiasco in Afghanistan is a show of power? ”
You think that externally projected military might is the only measure of the federal governments power?
“You think that externally projected military might is the only measure of the federal governments power?”
One of the more important ways, certainly. Handling of pandemics is another. I mentioned them both because of their importance, and the failures and weaknesses they expose.
Shellenberger is talking constantly about the problem of the security industrial State, and he’s correct, while we’re pissing and whining about Trump v Biden they are going about the business of international business.
This article starts with “whether a glass is half full or half empty is a matter of perspective,” but I see it as a matter of dynamics. If you were filling the glass, and stopped, it’s half full. If I don’t know whether it was being emptied or filled prior to me seeing it, it’s half a glass of water. Perspective comes in when we consider that our Founding Fathers wanted the People, through their representatives in Congress, to create our legal framework. They never considered Executive Orders, nor all the regulations made by agencies under the Executive Branch. We have allowed that Branch to become too powerful, and we need to shift the lawmaking responsibilities back to Congress alone.
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
I’d say that’s pretty clear.
Congress and SCOTUS need to do their jobs and start saying “NO” to executive orders, signing statements and all other extra-constitutional crap.
Nothing in the Constitution says that Congress can delegate legislative powers to the Executive. If this was a government of enumerated powers that would be a problem. Unfortunately for us, we have a government with powers limited only by the BoA. Since no Amendment says Congress can’t delegate its powers away, that’s what it does. So at this point we’d need an Amendment that prohibits the practice to stop it from happening, and even then there’s no guarantee it would be followed. After all, the Constitution requires Congress to come up with a budget. When was the last time that happened?
The Constitution tells the Prez to “see that the laws are faithfully executed.” Lincoln seen his chance to game the nullifiers and jumped on it with EXECUTIVE Order 1. Northern industrialists crowded his bandwagon the way I.G. Farben, Krupp, and all Big Pharma would in 1931 jump on Hitler’s bandwagon. That was when Dry Hope Herbert Hoover threatened German dope producers with extradition, tax liabilities, asset forfeiture and the competition’s League Limitation laws. Hitler, like Rutherford Hayes before him, became fuhrer. Like Twain twanged… History rhymes.
I’d also like to see an Amendment that lays out actual penalties for Congress when they fail in their duty. Like public flogging. One can dream…
What is their duty?
That seems to get defined as to what a party wants. Congress won’t pass climate change, then they are not doing their duty and the President should step in.
SCOTUS isn’t doing its “duty” when they rule against a party preferred legislation. Therefore, needs to be supervised.
Progressive attitudes towards gun control and free speech for example.
EO #1 was issued by Abe Lincoln to call the troops to arms in suppression of a Second Nullification Crisis threatening Congressional rate hikes in tariff protectionism and customs exactions. Without it neither gang of bipartite looters would have the Customs Union Kleptocracy to milk for boodle, pelf and patronage.
“This article starts with “whether a glass is half full or half empty is a matter of perspective,” but I see it as a matter of dynamics.”
I see it as a matter of impossibility. A drinking glass can not contain a vacuum, therefore it is always full, it’s just a matter of whether it is full of liquid or air or a mix of the two.
So you see an empty drinking glass on the counter, and you think “that glass is full. Of air.”
Either you’re a liar, or you have too much time on your hands.
Sense of humor check….processing….Error no sense of humor detected.
Dumb. I can’t stand you drunkasses at the party yapping about this sort of bs. That’s like the idiots that actually cared about the toilet paper coming off the front or back.
Of course many Americans want a dictator.
They want to elect someone who can push their agenda through without Congress interfering.
I think this is a healthy sign overall. People are interested in results, not the details of process, and that’s as it should be. How the game is played is of little concern compared to how it affects you. Most of this business about government forms concerns the effect politicians have on each other, rather than the effect they have on you. Due process of law is no comfort when it screws you; in that case I want undue process of un-law. I want the gun to jam if it’s aimed at me; I want it to work properly if I’m holding it. Any other opinion is just crazy.
The rule of law is “crazy”…
Now do lawfare against Trump.
Lemme guess, that IS rule of law working…right?
The ends justify the means is the philosophy that excused much hurt inflicted on people by leaders.
A lot of Germans thought the Jews sucked and wanted them out. Many of the same people were horrified when they learned about the process.
Actually, they were horrified when bombs began blasting their voting precincts and cheerleader rally stadiums to bits. To this day bomb squads are busy locating and disarming bombs on Christian Volksgenosse soil. It’s a pity the Soviets brainwashed half of Germany for nearly all of the 50 years Ayn Rand fan Bob Heinlein expected it to last. In Germany, as in our own Anschlussed LP, AfD christianofascism is strongest where anarco-communist writ ran amok. Thank Murry Rottbutt and Roychild Molester for making the LP a Trump rally.
And then accommodated themselves to it.
When you look at the psychology of people on this forum and imagine how they would react to being asked to load Jews or some other outgroup onto cattle trucks, it’s not too difficult to conceive of a significant number who’d go along with it.
I think many would jump at the opportunity to do that to illegals and Trump critics.
trueman and misek?
Cattle trucks? Hell, they’re itching to load the woodchippers themselves!
There are three kinds of people in this world.
The ones who want to enslave.
The ones who want to be enslaved.
The ones who wish to be free.
Big Government cheerleaders tend to be one of the first two.
There are 2 kinds. Those who divide everyone into 2 or 3 kinds and those who don’t.
And you are in the latter camp just for doing so, Hank.
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don’t.
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
Or, as Lt. Col. Dave Grossman put it:
“If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath—a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path.”
(On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society)
Sheepdogs are very expensive. Donkeys are an increasingly popular substitute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lFG1ps3wak
Americans Don’t Want a Dictatorship
Yes they do. They want a benevolent dictatorship. They just vehemently disagree on the definition of “benevolent.”
Given that 2/3rds of subjects went along with the Milgram Experiment, it’s good news that the percentage of Americans who want a dictatorship is so low.
Last I checked Trump wasn’t locking up opponents or using the FBI and IRS as weapons. Oh, and who started all the executive order stuff? Go look at Obama. He had a pen remember. Then Trump changed it, then Biden. But hey Biden follows the rule of law…oh wait.
Democrats always project what they really want/feel onto others. Right Rob?
Biden seems to have completely ignored the rule of law with repeated attempts to raid the public treasury to pay off the student loan debts of his supporters and potential supporters. What happened to spending bills having to originate in the House of Representatives, and having to get through Congress (both houses) first?
Executive orders started with the American Presidency not President Obama. If you check the numbers President Obama had less than his immediate predecessors. Look early 1900s for some big number and what and the heck was Cool Cal Coolidge up to anyway?
Trump’s opponents will not be locking him up that will be the courts and it will be because he has been convicted of crimes.
“Oh, and who started all the executive order stuff? Go look at Obama. ”
You have to look a lot further back than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order#:~:text=The%20first%20executive%20order%20was,United%20States%22%20in%20their%20fields.
Revealed preferences vs. stated preferences.
People do want a dictator.
Democracy does work by dominating your opponents. The advantage of democracy is that you count up sides and settle issues peacefully instead of fighting over everything.
The US Constitution did not create a democracy because it is one step from tyranny, but the fools wanted a democracy so they will soon vote in a dictatorship. This is what Franklin meant when he said, “A Republic if you can keep it.” Keep it? 99% of Americans do not even know we were a Republic.
“as if ridding ourselves of Orange Mussolini or Bumbling Brandon will resolve America’s political problems.”
Is JD letting his bias slip in here? One of them is a fascist (the original!), but the other is just bumbling?
“…voters strongly agree it would be better if a ‘President could take needed actions without being constrained by Congress or courts.'”
After seeing the January 6 riot and Trump’s election challenges characterized as an attempted coup d’etat, and the overturning of the US Constitution, it is hard to defend the idea that the unconstraining of the Executive Branch is what most people want.
I suspect that all it reflects is that average people on the whole do not understand the Separation of Powers or Checks and Balances, nor the fact that those things are precisely what keep the USA form of government alive.
There’s an entire mountain of history going from ‘our democracy’ —> dictatorship. Why did anyone think it would be (D)ifferent this time?.
The USA is a Constitutional Republic.
These numbers are a bit misleading. It makes it appear that Republicans have a more authoritarian bent than Democrats. Democrats may not want the president to exert unilateral power by personal decree, but I suspect that a larger number of Democrats than Republicans support the concept of unilateral executive branch decision-making in the form of unelected agency bureaucrats. Because the heads of those agencies are appointed by the president, the decisions made by those agencies are essentially an extension of unilateral executive power. And it was certainly clear during Covid and afterward the Democrats support that in very high numbers – perhaps as high as 75%