This entry was posted
on Friday, October 10th, 2008 at 7:38 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
And, the deification of the President goes beyond the popular perceptions of the average Joe. Another aspect comes from historians who tend to evaluate a President based on how much power accrued to the office during his term, and to government in general. War leadership and handling of other dramatic events (whether the President himself really made much difference or not) is a factor, of course. But, if you listen to these historians on PBS specials (somehow Doris Kearns Goodwin keeps coming to mind), they talk about how FDR, TR, Wilson, Lincoln, (more recently) Reagan, and so on increased the power and influence of the President and set executive precedents that assumed power that was previously unknown or in the hands of Congress or the courts.
That approach to evaluating a Presidency always struck me as fundamentally statist. How many “great” Presidents do we hear about who reduced the power of government overall or of the office specifically? It’s a metric that encourages authoritarianism.
+14
#2 |
Brandon Bowers |
October 10th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
That’s the theory by which Bush seems to be operating. By that metric, he’s one of the greatest presidents in history. Which pretty much means, well, that metric is deeply, deeply flawed.
I really need to read Healy’s book.
And, the deification of the President goes beyond the popular perceptions of the average Joe. Another aspect comes from historians who tend to evaluate a President based on how much power accrued to the office during his term, and to government in general. War leadership and handling of other dramatic events (whether the President himself really made much difference or not) is a factor, of course. But, if you listen to these historians on PBS specials (somehow Doris Kearns Goodwin keeps coming to mind), they talk about how FDR, TR, Wilson, Lincoln, (more recently) Reagan, and so on increased the power and influence of the President and set executive precedents that assumed power that was previously unknown or in the hands of Congress or the courts.
That approach to evaluating a Presidency always struck me as fundamentally statist. How many “great” Presidents do we hear about who reduced the power of government overall or of the office specifically? It’s a metric that encourages authoritarianism.
That’s the theory by which Bush seems to be operating. By that metric, he’s one of the greatest presidents in history. Which pretty much means, well, that metric is deeply, deeply flawed.
How many “great” Presidents do we hear about who reduced the power of government overall or of the office specifically?
Never mind how many “great” Presidents.
How many Presidents, great, mediocre, or really awful, reduced the power of government or their office?
At 0:58, just as the president is saying “…if that makes me a dictator…”, there’s an actor who’s the spitting image of Dick Cheney rubbing his chin.