During the W years, I actually enjoyed the frequent leftist commentary that Bushitler was moving us toward a dictatorship. Every time the guy sneezed, he was Stalin. I think it’s healthy to have an aggressive Media. But, I got news for you about that much-feared American dictatorship: it ain’t coming from the Right.
First off, the Left, not the Right, wants move government control: Government knows better and, for our own good, should control more. As you saw President Obama doing this week regarding Congressman Ryan’s plan, the Right is criticized for wanting less Government. Second off, the Media actually watches the Right, smacking them when they deserve it (and even when they don’t). Not so, the Left. Take this week, for example.
President Obama used the bully pulpit to challenge the Supreme Court in a pending case, which, in the American system of Government, is like beating someone in a coma. The Court does not and will not respond to such criticism. Thus, restrained Presidents do not criticize/threaten the Court regarding pending cases. After a decision is made? Sure, go for it; make your case politically for legislation to address the offensive decision. But, an attack while the Court deliberates undercuts the independence of the Judiciary and, thus, the rule of law.
I’m a huge fan of John Marshall, our greatest jurist and the author of Marbury v. Madison—the great decision that elaborated the constitutional pillar of judicial review. Last year, I had the privilege of discussing this great case and the constitutional principle of judicial review with a class at the UofU law school. Every law professor in the country knows that it was wrong for Obama to crap on the Court that way. Were he a Republican, they and the Media editorials, would have called him a Constitution-hating jackass for making the comments. But, since he’s a Democrat . . .
. . . the great Laurence Tribe said, “Even if such comments won’t affect the justices a bit, they can contribute to an atmosphere of public cynicism that I know this president laments.” Let me translate for the non-lawyers: “Such comments undercut the rule of law. The President was a jackass to make them”
Had Bushitler made the remarks, the Media would have spilled barrels of ink calling him a Constitution-hating jackass. Instead, for Obama, the Media spills barrels of anodyne, boldly noting that the remarks “struck a nerve.” Or, in case that was too aggressive to a Democrat, the thuggish words of the man holding the most powerful office in the world, directed to a co-equal branch of government that cannot/will not defend itself in the media, were merely Barack being . . . “cute.”I swear. Read it yourself.
In cases where the Media would call on all patriots to grab pitchforks and torches to thwart a Republican dictatorship juggernaut, the Media dismissed blatant thuggery as “cute.” The Executive’s disdain for the Judiciary and Separation of Powers concerns is “cute.”
But, the hyper-vigilant American Media won’t let a President get away with an attack on the Court; will it? No! The Media proclaims, “Even some legal scholars sympathetic to Obama and the health-care law are saying that the president might have been better off keeping quiet.” Roar! Take that Mr. President! Go Media! Speak unvarnished truth to power!
You’re just a racist
Dear Senator,
You asked if I had read the article. I did, which is why I said that this is the sort of comment Glenn Beck would make. A liberal media is less inclined to criticize and more inclined to excuse/rationalize otherwise inappropriate actions by a liberal or Democratic president (O is governing from the Center, in my opinion) because of who s/he is rather than what s/he did. I see it too. I argue with fellow liberals over some of O’s policies and acts by saying that we’d be up in arms if W were the one doing them.
I’ll reject your argument about who wants more government control between the left and the right because that one-dimensional spectrum is too simplistic and fails to capture what *type* of control, if any, a particular ideology supports. Take a political ideology quiz and you’ll be put in to a quadrant, not on a line, usually marked by your preferences regarding economic and social freedom. This also implies that there are different types of liberals and conservatives, usually with communitarians and libertarians breaking respectively from their more mainstream counterparts in favor of more control over personal behavior on the left and even less control thereof on the right.
But, does any of this mean that a dictatorship, however you want to describe such a regime in the US, is possible with a left-friendly media? No.
Even if the Constitution allowed the Executive to grab so much power to constitute a dictatorship (again, you didn’t even define it or explain how this “would” happen), dictatorships have much more to do with a) the personality of the dictator and b) the conditions that permitted him (usually a guy, no?) to ascend to his position. A compliant media would therefore likely be a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Also remember that Obama and Bush are very different in terms of their personal appeal. It’s a very limited sample over a short period of time.
Imagine a Republican president who is personally popular but whose job approval ratings are mixed. It’s not impossible, even with our media. I can very well see Jon Huntsman in such a position were he president. It’s possible to be a media-friendly Republican. So, while you’re right that O can get away with more because the media like him, it’s not the case that the media will only like a liberal, or that it’s because he was a liberal. It’s all(mostly) personality. So, you ought to take your own partisanship out of the argument and simply say: It’s not what’s being said or done, but who’s saying/doing it.
But your conclusion in essence that the media would permit a liberal dictator a wild exaggeration by way of being closely resembling Glenn Beck’s favorite fallacy: argumentum ad Hitlerum. Most of what I’ve read here at your blog been reasonable. This is not.
Thanks for considering.
Okay, Jeff. Well said. I’m gonna hold my ground about the Media protecting leftist ideology, but your points are well made. It bugs me to no end that Congress tells President O “no” on a policy matter, and he just does it through agency action. The courts tell him something (i.e., the offshore drilling moratorium), and he thumbs his nose at them. And the Media ignores the power grab (which in all cases is a power grab from the people).
But, yeah, is the Right power hungry? Of course. I did want to make my point about the leftist media neutering itself regarding Democrats, but I probably took too polemic an approach. Thanks for reading and caring enough to comment.