MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

If You're Freaking Out Over Donald Trump's Presidential Powers, Thank a Liberal!

Where were Democrats when Obama was going power-mad? Egging him on, mostly.

The Daily BeastThe Daily BeastLast night at the Golden Globes, the actress Meryl Streep spoke for Hollywood when she denounced President-elect Donald Trump as a bad hombre. As Jacob Sullum notes, she and Entertainment World glitterati are not convincing spokespeople for underdogs, but she wasn't wrong when she said:

Disrespect invites disrespect; violence incites violence. And when the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.

One of the things that Streep, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention last summer in support of Hillary Clinton, didn't address, though, is the way in which Barack Obama has handed Trump vast powers as president. There's no question that Obama worked overtime to arrogate more power to the presidency over the past eight years, using all sorts of unilateral action to get shit done. Even Yellow Dog Democrats will grant as much when it comes to civil liberties abuses (remember Bam's "secret kill list"?) and waging war (still waiting on his request to Congress under the War Powers Act to sanction Libya, which turned out so well). Obama was on the losing end of a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling about abusing recess-appointment powers and his moves on immigration law suffered a similar fate as well. In all sorts of ways, the plain fact is that, like George W. Bush before, Obama was ready to grab as much power as he could. And whatever presidential precedents he established will now be sitting in Oval Office, waiting for the arrival of Donald Trump. That's a disturbing reality, I argue in a new Daily Beast column, and one to which I say:

Thanks a lot, liberals. It's all well and good that Joe Biden is now lecturing us that "the worst sin of all is the abuse of power," but where the hell was he—and where were you—for the past eight years, when the president was starting wars without Congressional authorization, passing major legislation with zero votes from the opposing party, and ruling almost exclusively through executive orders and actions?

Mostly exhorting Obama to act "unilaterally" and "without Congress" on terrorism, immigration, guns, and whatever because you couldn't dream of a day when an unrestrained billionaire reality-TV celebrity would wield those same powers toward very different ends. Hell, in the early months of Obama's presidency, The New York Times's Thomas Friedman held up China's "one-party autocracy" as the model to emulate.

I'm already getting an earful from Obama supporters who claim their guy had no choice, given the stated opposition of Republicans to all that is good and decent. In fact, I anticipated that argument:

But, but, but…, I can hear you saying, …the Republicans pledged from the outset that their main priority was to make Obama "a one-term president," as Mitch McConnell said in 2010. "Waiting for the Republicans to act on immigration is pointless!" right? Or on guns, overtime pay, air and water regulations, or anything else. He had to act unilaterally.

That may all be true, but it doesn't change the fact that Obama Rex presents the worst-possible presidential precedent for his successor, a man who enters office with seemingly no ability to check his own ego, limits, and tweets.

NBCNBCPeople are quick to forget that when Obama won election, he had large congressional majorities too and got everything he asked for during his first two years. Besides tripling troop strength in Afghanistan, expanding and extending TARP bailouts, passing a stimulus plan, and shoving Obamacare through, all that netted was a Repbublican Congress in the 2010 midterms. Suddenly, the guy who was fond of saying "elections have consequences" was singing a different tune, one about having "a pen and a phone" and how he wasn't just "going to be waiting around for legislation." And he didn't.

I hope that liberals and Democrats more generally don't simply treat the rise of Donald Trump as a partisan issue. Fact is that all the major ideologies in America—libertarian, conservative, and liberal—do believe in limited government. While we might disagree over the specifics, none of us wants a government that can do whatever it wants if the majority says so. But when the GOP is in power, they get power-mad and the same goes for the Democrats. It's time to actually forge a consensus that is bigger than party affiliation. If liberals are willing to join in, they'll find some conservative and libertarian Republican allies in Congress who they can work with. I end the Beast column with a summary of Sen. Mike Lee's "Article I Project," which seeks to pull power back to Congress as the institution that is supposed to pass laws and budgets (neither of which it's bothered to do very much in a long time).

In Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America's Founding Dcoument, Utah's Lee makes exactly that case. "A government," Lee told me in an interview last year, "that is big enough and powerful enough to spy on you, to lie to you, to target you, is a government that we ought not have in the first place."

That's more than enough common ground to start a real conversation about whittling the imperial presidency down to size once and for all, and not just for the next four or eight years.

Read Reason's latest print issue for a whole cache of stories about the Obama legacy.

Last Friday, I spoke with Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept about how Obama expanded presidential powers when it comes not just to curtailling civil liberties but economic freedom too. It's a sharp discussion, especially Greenwald's points about how crony capitalism cuts deeply across both Democrats and Republicans.

Subscribe for free to the Reason Podcast at iTunes and never miss an episode.

Follow us at Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to Reason magazine for just $15 a year!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Well, thank a progressive, anyway. I'm not sure you could call more than a small minority "liberals".

  • colorblindkid||

    Today's "liberals" are every bit as liberal as today's "conservatives".

  • Lee Genes||

    I've managed to avoid the Meryl Streep virtue signaling exercise. Don't you bring it to me here. I've got nowhere else to go.

  • Rhywun||

    I have zero respect for any of these clowns who say anything beyond "Thanks!" at these stupid circle jerks. And like a true leftist, she has to go and politicize it. She is aware that at least parts of flyover country were probably watching, right?

  • The Grinch||

    She knows they were too busy watching football and trying to woo their cousins to bother watching high culture like the Golden Globes.

  • Sevo||

    "...high culture like the Golden Globes."

    Has always struck me as a sales-awards ceremony for those who have spent their entire careers pretending to be someone else.
    I'm sure to take moral advice from them!

  • croaker||

    But they got to see if after on YouTube.

  • BigW||

    Nope, haven't watched an awards show since 2003.

  • ||

    I hope that liberals and Democrats more generally don't simply treat the rise of Donald Trump as a partisan issue. Fact is that all the major ideologies in America—libertarian, conservative, and liberal—do believe in limited government.

    Thanks for the laugh, Nick!

  • Brochetta's magic (((pants)))||

    I love how he views libertarianism as a major ideology. Where's progressivism/socialism there? Seem to have a bit more electoral success of late.

  • ThomasD||

    Not sure if I should feel sorry for him. Either for being a plain idiot, or a disingenuous idiot.

  • esteve7||

    you really should relocate your headquarters to Wyoming or something. Being in LA has warped your mind.

    / In in the Bay Area but somehow have not been infected

  • SIV||

    If only they stayed in L.A. Anywhere far, far, from D.C.

  • The Grinch||

    Nick might mean well but he's flat out delusional here. Republicans love big govt and a powerful executive when they're in power, Democrats love the same when they are. It's all about having the right people in charge in their minds and that's never going to change.

  • FD||

    ..and precisely why his comment was unnecessary and senseless. "While we might disagree over the specifics, none of us wants a government that can do whatever it wants if the majority says so."
    Huh?!!! I guess the qualifier "none" salvages a thread of accuracy.
    I suppose it's another naive olive branch to all the statist enemies that would ruthlessly crush him without a moment's regret. As I said elsewhere, the editorial gang has been going soft for years now. Just no fire.

  • Johnimo||

    Nick is delusional. All the Liberals I know want more government, and they'll take it anyway they can get it.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    That quote may be literally true, but coming from Meryl Streep it's like Putin extolling the value of free speech, or Marx extolling the benefits of free markets. Sorry, I don't like hypocrites.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    FADE IN:

    INT. PALATIAL MALIBU HOME WITH OCEAN VIEW - DAY

    Meryl Streep reads Gillespie's article is read Gillespie's article by a personal assistant.

    STREEP: Why, I never!

    And cut! Lacks pathos, but as a visual I find this appealing.

  • Volren||

    She's too busy taking congratulatory calls from fawning admirers for her courage.

  • R C Dean||

    Shorter Nick:

    Me today, you tomorrow. Dumbasses.

  • kV||

    Yes, but you've got to admire the style here--for example, his use of "arrogate" and "get shit done" in the same sentence.

  • The Fusionist||

    I don't think this post (didn't read the article) addresses the actual position of lots of progs - which is that politics is a ruthless struggle for power between themselves and their enemies. *Of course* their enemies will do bad things once in power, because they're bad. That's why we need Good People (like progs) in office, so they *won't* commit all those Hitlerian abuses.

    The idea of restraining oneself while in power, to avoid setting a bad precedent for when your enemies are in power, doesn't account for a belief system in which the *point* is to put the Right People in power and have them do the Right Things.

    Self-restraint while in power makes sense to those for whom limitation on government power is an important principle...but for those who think the whole purpose of the Good Guys being in power is to Do Good...from that point of view the remedy against abuses of power by the Bad Guys is to keep the Bad Guys out of power and put the Good Guys in.

  • Drake||

    Yes. Blaming leftists for abusing power is like blaming the dogs for eating the steak you left on the floor.

  • esteve7||

    yes, exactly. Their only principles are GOOD people being in POWER. The right top men.

    See, if we had a perfectly Libertarian place, and it went to shit, I'm sure we would do a lot of self-reflecting and modify our beliefs --- ex if all drugs were legalized and it wrecked the area, ok maybe that wasn't such a good idea.

    Never.Fucking.Happens. with progressives. Command and Control economies have resulted in tens of millions of dead and oppressed people in the last century, and they still say "well communism didn't work right this time because we just didn't have the right people in charge".

    My prog friend was praising Cuba and trashing America, all I said was "well people arn't risking their lives to escape from USA to go to Cuba, just like how they didn't get shot trying to leave West Berlin to East Berlin". Just a fucking blank stare, like oh I'll just ignore that inconvenient fact

  • BakedPenguin||

    A couple asshole Marines did jump from the South to North Korea in the 60's. Doesn't really bother me, as they got what they deserved - most of their life in North Korea.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    You're underselling Communism there. Including the famines that seem to disproportionately affect countries that try collective farming, the death toll would be over 100 million

  • Calidissident||

    You make a good point, but there still have been a lot of left-leaning people all of the sudden singing the praises of checks and balances, separation of powers, limits on executive power, etc. when they said nothing of the sort the past 8 years.

    And going off that note, I hope that conservatives who stressed the importance of these things the last 8 years are held accountable if/when they flip flop now that Trump is taking office.

  • The Fusionist||

    I said "lots of progs," but people are complex, many people who embrace prog ideas don't always take those ideas to the logical conclusion...thank God.

    And some of them can "get religion" when they find themselves in opposition, and sincerely persuade themselves that they've been for checks and balances all along.

    Of course other political tendencies have similar problems, I'm just saying that when your philosophy involves a highly ambitious governing agenda, it's hard to be true fans of limiting government power, as long as you think you have a shot at influencing the govt.

  • esteve7||

    it's like how they sneered when California wanted to breakup into smaller states, yet now they want to leave the US for the exact same reason.

  • Brochetta's magic (((pants)))||

    I was really hoping Mel Gibson would get on that stage. Especially after Streep's bullshit.

    Yes, I watched the Golden Globes. For the first time in my life I watched an awards show. It was as awful as expected, but I get all the cool kid water cooler talk this morning! I'll never do it again.

  • Drake||

    All the cool kids here talk about playoff football.

  • Brochetta's magic (((pants)))||

    This is a libertarian blog/magazine's website. There are no cool kids here. The cool kids hold the football watching yokels like me in disdain, anyway.

  • Drake||

    I thought we were all one big happy family after Robby's roadtrip of self-discovery?

  • Rat don't serf||

    I thought it was the Kool Kids Klub. I may have misread the article.

  • esteve7||

    "Elections have consequences and I won"
    "Go out there an win an election"

    etc.

    Yeah fuck you progs, you deserve all this and more. You're so arrogant you always think you'll be in power forever. I remember an old PBS panel with Friedman, Sowell, and a few liberals, and they said "well one day you may have a very conservative Supreme Court..." and the liberals just laughed over that. Never occurs to them their enemies may be in power.

    I used to ask progs what if there was a President Coulter....

    They really don't hate that Trump has all that power, just that it's TRUMP. Principals, not Principles.

  • GILMORE™||

    You and all of us in this room really belong to the most vilified segments in American society right now. Think about it: Hollywood, foreigners and the press.

    Actually, i think its fair to say that's all just "one segment".

    (*and really, only 2 = because the 'foreigners' she refers to aren't Cuban emigres or mexican day-laborers; they're foreign members of hollywood/the media)

    They mainly make their living reinforcing each others delusions, and spitting on anyone outside their in-group; then seem surprised when they're not universally loved and admired.

    Watching people moan about being "vilified" while networks broadcast their tuxedo-clad self-congratulatory dinners on prime-time ... is at least mildly amusing.

  • The Fusionist||

    1) Trump may not be part of Hollywood, but he's certainly been in the entertainment industry.

    2) His wife was a foreigner until she married him

    3) Trump has been playing the press like a violin, and whether the media like him or not, they know he's good for ratings.

    So it's not the Trump is against foreigners and the media/entertainment industry as such, but that he's against anyone who does stuff he doesn't like, or opposes him.

  • The Fusionist||

    Contrast this with Hillary "love your enemies" Clinton

    /sarc

  • GILMORE™||

    *secondly

    re: "Most vilified"

    I think maybe she overlooked the fact that Trump supporters spent most of 2016 being subject to an endlessly-repeated "photo montage" which was a blend of Triumph of the Will and Duck Dynasty.

    the way the media freaked out over the "white working class" thing after the election? has been most notable mainly in how they admit that they have no freaking idea what that really even means beyond their much-relied-upon Stock Images of fat people in red hats.

    They sort of flailingly refer to things like "hilbilly elegy" .... or write pieces like Robby's "i talked to a guy who changed a tire!" thing, and act as though this was a major cultural breakthrough of sorts.

  • BigT||

    "Think about it: Hollywood, foreigners and the press."

    They're deplorable!

  • croaker||

    They were the ones lining up the boxcars for us.

    Now the shoe is on the other foot.

  • Brochetta's magic (((pants)))||

    Oh, and can we just be honest...Streep is the most overrated fucking person in Hollywood. She has zero appeal to me as a man. Her movies suck from from that boring ass piece of shit Deer Hunter right up to her latest shit which I'd never even try to watch. There's not a single movie she's been in that I give a fuck about, but then you have to listen to these cunts in Hollywood save the biggest loads in their industry-wide circle jerks for her every year. We get self-important speeches from her and about her.

  • R C Dean||

    There's not a single movie she's been in that I give a fuck about,

    I like Out of Africa.

  • Brochetta's magic (((pants)))||

    I'm just going to pretend I didn't read that.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    The Devil Wears Prada was way better than the book. The book was unreadable dreck.

  • Brochetta's magic (((pants)))||

    I'll take your word for it. On both counts.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I was really bored. Don't hate. Whatever one thinks of Hathaway and Streep's amiable reserved mediocrity, it also had Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci, and those two always turn in an enjoyable performance.

  • ||

    Had you spelled it "drek", I might have invited you to join my weekly Shadowrun group.

  • Deli-bro||

    Is that a WoW reference? Haven't played in a few years.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's a Shadowrun reference. It's an RPG.

  • croaker||

    This is a river.

    This is the NAN Council being sold down the river.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Cultural appropriation.

  • ||

    *crosses RC Dean off of the cool kid list*

  • R C Dean||

    Dang. Tough crowd.

  • GILMORE™||

    I was going to say, "Sophies Choice", then i saw them attack you like rabid jackals and decided to stay out of it.

  • DesigNate||

    The Devil Wears Prada and Julie & Julia were both enjoyable when I watched them with Mrs. DesigNate.

    I'd be hard pressed to name any other movie of hers that I've seen though.

  • But Enough About Me||

    Out of Africa was good, but that's partly because it really wouldn't have mattered which female was in the role of lover. Coulda rolled the dice and picked almost anyone.

    Then there was The French Lieutenant's Woman. That's a couple of hours of my life I'll never get back. I put it in the same category as that Australian schlock Picnic at Hanging Rock.

  • The Fusionist||

    Wasn't she Mrs. Claus in Ernest Saves Christmas?

    /trying desperately to start a fake news story

  • Rich||

    True.

    The kicker is: Not many people know the *other* role she played in that fine film.

  • SFC B||

    Death Becomes Her.

  • croaker||

    If only it was for real...

  • BigT||

    "She has zero appeal to me as a man"

    She wasn't too good playing women either.

    Her Iron Lady was a horrid hit piece. Cancer in her!

  • ||

    Been trying to tell this to my Progressive friends for nearly eight years.

    It fell on deaf ears.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    While we might disagree over the specifics, none of us wants a government that can do whatever it wants if the majority says so.

    I don't know about that. I hear bullshit like "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact!" much too often.

  • epsilon given||

    Go away, Meryl Streep. We're talking about how Hollywood types like you no longer have credibility. Making claims like this isn't helping your credibility in any way.

  • Voros McCracken||

    "Fact is that all the major ideologies in America—libertarian, conservative, and liberal—do believe in limited government."

    Cite? Fact is that the two prevailing ideologies believe entirely in the "total state" as long as they are the ones in charge.

  • Rhywun||

    And the last one doesn't even give lip service to "limited government"; in fact, they quite openly desire it.

  • Rhywun||

    *it the opposite

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    One of the things that Streep, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention last summer in support of Hillary Clinton Richard Nixon

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I hope that liberals and Democrats more generally don't simply treat the rise of Donald Trump as a partisan issue.

    A wishful statement proven wrong before it was uttered.

  • Sevo||

    "Pelosi, other top Dems rally against GOP effort to dump health plan"
    [...]
    ""I don't want this to be partisan, but the fact is (Republicans) have talked about 'repeal and replace,'" Pelosi said."
    http://www.sfgate.com/politics.....842432.php

    If you didn't despise that glued-together piece of protoplasm already, now you have reason.

  • Rich||

    Pelosi said Saturday's news conference will be the first of many public actions she and other lawmakers will be making in hopes of saving the Affordable Care Act

    "Your tax dollars at work!"

  • BigT||

    Headline I want to see:

    Pelosi pancreatic cancer.

  • croaker||

    The problem is the cunt has access to world class health care the rest of us could only hope to have.

  • epsilon given||

    "If you didn't despise that glued-together piece of protoplasm already, now you have reason."

    This is too ambiguous for my taste. Are you talking about Pelosi, or the ACA, or both?

  • Thomas O.||

    What I hope Mike Lee understands is it's gonna take a lot of politicians that can withstand resistance to peer pressure (not to mention pressure from leadership) for this small-government revolution to happen. Joe Lawmaker may have gotten elected to help "drain the swamp", but pretty soon the swamplords will be urging him to support one Government Doing More Shit Act after another. First they'll threaten to put his name out of the running for committees. Next they'll disinvite him to all the fancy parties and dinners. Finally they'll threaten to throw all their support behind a primary opponent when re-election time comes around. If Joe Lawmaker can withstand all that and get re-elected, then this faction may have a fighting chance. But it IS disillusioning when even Ted "Fuck You I Won't Do What You Tell Me" Cruz can succumb to the Dark Side.

  • BakedPenguin||

    A bunch of K Street thugs pointing out how much money they can offer his opponent next election should do fine.

  • creech||

    Pretty much how Ron Paul was treated by the majority of his fellow Republicans. I once followed him through the halls of the capitol and saw how he was not greeted by fellow congressmen even as they back slapped and glad handed each other. It takes guts to stand up to such shunning (and, of course, a safe district.)

  • Longtobefree||

    Wait; they STILL have award shows?

  • EscherEnigma||

    " If liberals are willing to join in, they'll find some conservative and libertarian Republican allies in Congress who they can work with."
    ... after a Democrat wins the presidency again.

    C'mon, don't be daft. There is zero chance in hell that a Republican congress is going to take action to limit a Republican president. If you honestly believe so, you've exchanged hope for good sense.

  • epsilon given||

    I'm not entirely sure about this. When George W. Bush nominated Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court, he was forced to withdraw her nomination by his own party.

    So there is precedence!

    But it's not something we ought to count on, either...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Both came in on a wave of mindless followers with scant practical experience. Neither had governed a day in his life when elected, but both had the appearance of inflated egos. The tweets are really the only thing that separate Obama and Trump, and I suspect if Twitter was as big a thing before 2008, it would have been an even tougher time for handlers to wrestle that troublesome Blackberry away from Obama.

  • bacon-magic||

    Good catch Fist. See you on P.M. links.

  • BigT||

    "The tweets are really the only thing that separate Obama and Trump, "

    Um...businessman vs lifelong parasite?

  • ||

    Reagan faced the exact same stated opposition, and in much less power grabbing "got shit done".

  • The Fusionist||

    Instead of trying to form an antistatist coalition with the mythical liberaltarians ("but I have a blurry photo of a liberaltarian! or Bigfoot!"), why not work issue by issue? There may be some issues where otherwise statist people will be willing to work to reduce the state's footprint, but so long as someone is stuck in the prog ideology, limited-government-ism won't be appealing to him/her.

  • Shatterface||

    It's easy to mock Streep but how many other women could have had a successful career after the personal tragedy of a dingo eating their baby?

  • wingnutx||

  • DesigNate||

    "Waiting for the Republicans to act on immigration is pointless!"

    Didn't Bush offer up some kind of work visa program that, while not open borders, would have been a vast improvement over "Deport everyone and let God sort them out."?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    "It's totes different when our guy does it because ... reasons." - stupid Democrap partisan hacks

  • Jerryskids||

    Disrespect invites disrespect; violence incites violence.

    Fugettaboutit, it's a New York values thing. What the fuck you lookin' at? Hey, getta load a this guy, he's all "doy, doy, I'm a spazoid retard, doy, doy". Dumbass.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: If You're Freaking Out Over Donald Trump's Presidential Powers, Thank a Liberal!
    Where were Democrats when Obama was going power-mad? Egging him on, mostly.

    Thank a liberal?
    You must be smoking some good shit Nick!
    The democrats are as bad as the republicans when it comes to wiping their ass with the US Constitution, and I doubt either party knows what it is, what is says or stands for.

  • Christophe||

    He means "thank" a liberal for helping increase the powers of the office. Readjust sarcasm meter.

  • rhkennerly||

    Well, that's pretty ahistorical.

    There is little to no difference between Obama's executive actions and Bush2's "signing statements" in which he often eviscerated or at least changed the scope of the laws he signed.

    The real problem here is not executive power. The real problem is Congress abandoning their prerogatives and duties. Congress has absolutely failed the constitution, instead ceding power to the administration. Apparently it's a lot easier to sit on the sidelines complaining and throwing rocks than to govern.

    When was the last time Congress, for instance, fulfilled its constitutional duty to declare war? Twice Obama asked Congress to redraw the memo enacted 15 years ago to wage war in the middle east, which has expanded to Africa and Syria and Yemen now. Not a peep from Congress. When the Syrian's hit Obama's RedLine, they refused to get on board (or to vote it down). Congress did nothing.

    If the American public is concerned about Presidential Power, insist that Congress pick up it's duty to "pit ambition against ambition" [Madison, Federalist 51] and make the system of divided powers work.

    "This system cannot function, though, if the branches do not fulfill their constitutionally-designated roles and jealously guard their prerogatives when other branches encroach. "

  • epsilon given||

    In what way does Congress have a "duty" to declare war?

    Undoubtedly, they have the power to do so, and there may be disagreement as to whether or not we should participate or start a given war, but it's not the duty of Congress to declare war at every drop of the hat, regardless of whether the President wants to go to war or not.

    I would even go so far as to say that Congress may very well want to go to war over something, but that they don't necessarily trust someone like Obama to be the one fighting that war.

    But you are right: we need to insist that Congress pick up its duty to "pit ambition against ambition"; we ought to start with cancelling the law-making powers that Congress has delegated to non-Congressional entities. Only Congress should be making federal laws and regulations.

  • alan schmidt||

    Your assertion of all parties wanting limited government is not correct. I have never once heard a liberal argue that the government is too big. It is the single largest employer in the world, as much as ten times the largest private company.

    I think most missed it, I believe that the majority of citizens believe that the current government is extremely corrupt and that the attractive feature about Donald Trump is that no party liked him, because he is not an insider and wouldn't play by their rules. I believe they think he is going to mess up the cash cow they all have going.

    But I agree that the people of this country need to make their voice heard loud and clear, my concern is that even our screams will be ignored. The example I point to is this, when Obama care was going to the floor, a petition with approx. 1.3 million signatures was delivered to the floor in opposition and it was still passed. This was the single largest petition delivered to Congress and it was ignored. So how many were getting paid or black mailed to have this happen? And how many of these are still there manipulating the system.

  • Uncle Joe||

    If a majority of liberals wanted even more ambitious expansion of government social spending, Sanders would have won the nomination. You also ignore the liberal voices calling out Obama's continuation of domestic surveillance & extra-legal droning. You may or may not see government bans against abortion as intrusion, but liberals do.

    Walmart employs around 2.2 million people. To get to ten times that number, you're including all state & local government employees like cops & teachers, all active duty military & National Guard Reserves, as well as 600,000 postal workers. Otherwise, the total is around 2.8 million Federal employees. The VA, INS & Homeland Security are the largest departments outside of the DoD. China has about twice as many people employed in various government agencies. We are well behind other developed nations in terms of how much of our workforce is in the public sector. Feel free to argue that there could be shrinking of bureaucracies, but argue from facts.

  • Eman||

    Some cliches are clichéd cause they're true. Whatever power you claim for yourself being used against you is one of them. It is old news, but ideas don't have to be exciting to be relevant. There's another true cliche about people who dont pay attention to history...

  • Carp458||

    The more these Hollywood elitist talk, the better. It only exposes their
    disdain and smugness toward the ordinary citizen. As President Trump
    succeeds in his campaign promises those ordinary citizens will take notice
    and the elitists will get even more desperate and vocal.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Trump tweets Jan 20th

    Now *I* have a pen and a phone!
    Thanks, Barack!

  • Right_by_Choice||

    Is it only me, or does anyone else look at Meryl Streep and hear, "no wire coat hangers, no wire coat hangers!" in their head?

  • Right_by_Choice||

    Is it only me, or does anyone else look at Meryl Streep and hear, "no wire coat hangers, no wire coat hangers!" in their head?

  • Right_by_Choice||

    I remember the time when Republicans abused the minority with the Presidency and a filibuster-proof Senate and House......

    Oh wait.

  • SF Pete||

    except they were all rhino's taking their legislation from Democrats, acting like democrats, it's why they got the BOOT.

  • Will4Freedom||

    "still waiting on his request to Congress ..."

    If this was in the comments section, I wouldn't care, but isn't Nick supposed to be an actual paid "writer"?

    still waiting FOR his request to Congress...

  • SF Pete||

    wow, this guy has no clue how radical the left is.......just amazing.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online