Great essay. What would also be fascinating would be a study of why the Federalist Society and Republicans are such fans of unchecked or unitary executive power. What is it about the “Republican mind” (as if there’s such a thing) that thinks the deliberation, discussion and debate of the legislative branch is outdated, too inefficient, too kumbaya-ish, too slow and cumbersome, too constraining on profits, for effective governance of a superpower? That sees judicial review as “activism” or “legislation from the bench” - unless review affirms their executive actions. Is there something inherent in the conservative “Republican mind” that abhors complexity, nuance, oppositional ideas, and insists on action over analysis? Outside the few legitimate emergencies of governance, what’s the damn hurry to act by EO? Without even pretending to consider different data, stakeholders, and points of view? As Douglas Feith, a neocon Republican in Dubya’s administration, told WSJ journalist Ron Suskind about 20 years ago: “while you’re studying that reality,” the aide [Feith] added, “we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
As if the “Republican mind’s” compulsion toward action and disdain for analysis and debate are good or admirable qualities (and maybe they are in emergencies, where the paralysis of analysis can be deadly), something about which to be smugly proud. A “ready, fire, aim” to governance, just another iteration of Silicon Valley’s “move fast and break things” tech business ethos, what many neocons called creative destruction.
All of which might be necessary survival thinking, appropriate risk taking in order to gain big rewards, in the private sector of American capitalism. But which is thinking unsuited to the governance required under democratic pluralism. Which is one reason (out of too many) why Trump and his billionaire-laden Cabinet, his oligarch constituency, may be so unsuited by mind and temperament to govern in the public interest or for the common good - because they think and act like businessmen.
Or maybe understanding the “Republican mind” is truly much simpler. As a euphemistic shorthand for those who are (by nature or upbringing) ruthless, cruel, and greedy…
From what I’ve read they realized they would never win Congress reliably after the civil rights era so they came up with this and originalism. They set their sites on the courts and changed how we see the country one ruling at a time
Last paragraph of your comment speaks to me. Also the nature of people in regard to personality characteristics. Upbringing, heredity, morals, money and many more probably.
In a healthy representative democracy, an executive purporting to declare war unilaterally would be stripped of executive authority by a straightforward vote of no confidence by the legislative body directly representative of the people.
(By implication I do not consider presidential systems to be healthy representative democracies. The combination of de jure power, democratic mandate and permanence in office is too dangerous.)
(I also freely concede that there is substance to many of the criticisms made of parliamentary systems, but given the shitshow I'm seeing to my south I'm very glad I live with one of those than the nightmare less than a hundred kilometres away from me.)
In a democracy, are/should the people be considered sovereign? If so, then the people need to decide the exception. Their actions need to be assumed constitutional unless explicitly prohibited by statute or vested to the branches of government. Only the people get to decide when ignoring a law is permissible given an emergency. Interesting! The bill of rights, innocent until proven guilty, jury of peers, and civil disobedience all appear in a new light. They were explicitly written to ensure the people remain sovereign and in control of the exception.
Also, the whole imminent invasion scenario falls apart when you consider that it is still foreseeable in broad terms, and Congress can (and have) specified in advance how they want the executive to respond.
I don't have a problem w/ the observation that modern Americans are uncomfortably OK with authoritarianism and have a poor understanding of the Separation of Powers. However, I don't know that showing neocon's authoritarian undergarments does justice to the subject.
I note, for example, that the Obama Administration's conduct in Libya and Syria suggest a similarly reckless disregard of underlying principles in the War Powers Act. So too, Presidents Clinton and Biden, certainly no "conservatives," were quite comfortable w/ treating inherent executive power to defend national interest as essentially limitable only by Congress and, at least w/r to the Obama and Biden Admins, not even limitable by Congress when it came to environmental and immigration regulation.
My point being that you seem to be laying solid groundwork for a critique of Imperial Presidents. I am w/ you on this and solidly share the concern that this cannot go anywhere good. However, your argument cannot be grounded well, or sufficiently encompassing on this tack b/c it is a trend across philosophical underpinnings of successive admins.
Great essay. What would also be fascinating would be a study of why the Federalist Society and Republicans are such fans of unchecked or unitary executive power. What is it about the “Republican mind” (as if there’s such a thing) that thinks the deliberation, discussion and debate of the legislative branch is outdated, too inefficient, too kumbaya-ish, too slow and cumbersome, too constraining on profits, for effective governance of a superpower? That sees judicial review as “activism” or “legislation from the bench” - unless review affirms their executive actions. Is there something inherent in the conservative “Republican mind” that abhors complexity, nuance, oppositional ideas, and insists on action over analysis? Outside the few legitimate emergencies of governance, what’s the damn hurry to act by EO? Without even pretending to consider different data, stakeholders, and points of view? As Douglas Feith, a neocon Republican in Dubya’s administration, told WSJ journalist Ron Suskind about 20 years ago: “while you’re studying that reality,” the aide [Feith] added, “we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
As if the “Republican mind’s” compulsion toward action and disdain for analysis and debate are good or admirable qualities (and maybe they are in emergencies, where the paralysis of analysis can be deadly), something about which to be smugly proud. A “ready, fire, aim” to governance, just another iteration of Silicon Valley’s “move fast and break things” tech business ethos, what many neocons called creative destruction.
All of which might be necessary survival thinking, appropriate risk taking in order to gain big rewards, in the private sector of American capitalism. But which is thinking unsuited to the governance required under democratic pluralism. Which is one reason (out of too many) why Trump and his billionaire-laden Cabinet, his oligarch constituency, may be so unsuited by mind and temperament to govern in the public interest or for the common good - because they think and act like businessmen.
Or maybe understanding the “Republican mind” is truly much simpler. As a euphemistic shorthand for those who are (by nature or upbringing) ruthless, cruel, and greedy…
From what I’ve read they realized they would never win Congress reliably after the civil rights era so they came up with this and originalism. They set their sites on the courts and changed how we see the country one ruling at a time
Last paragraph of your comment speaks to me. Also the nature of people in regard to personality characteristics. Upbringing, heredity, morals, money and many more probably.
An underlying all of this are the inherent vulnerabilities of the human race currently grotesquely manifested in our executive branch
In a healthy representative democracy, an executive purporting to declare war unilaterally would be stripped of executive authority by a straightforward vote of no confidence by the legislative body directly representative of the people.
(By implication I do not consider presidential systems to be healthy representative democracies. The combination of de jure power, democratic mandate and permanence in office is too dangerous.)
(I also freely concede that there is substance to many of the criticisms made of parliamentary systems, but given the shitshow I'm seeing to my south I'm very glad I live with one of those than the nightmare less than a hundred kilometres away from me.)
Very well articulated
In a democracy, are/should the people be considered sovereign? If so, then the people need to decide the exception. Their actions need to be assumed constitutional unless explicitly prohibited by statute or vested to the branches of government. Only the people get to decide when ignoring a law is permissible given an emergency. Interesting! The bill of rights, innocent until proven guilty, jury of peers, and civil disobedience all appear in a new light. They were explicitly written to ensure the people remain sovereign and in control of the exception.
Also, the whole imminent invasion scenario falls apart when you consider that it is still foreseeable in broad terms, and Congress can (and have) specified in advance how they want the executive to respond.
Enschimittification.
I don't have a problem w/ the observation that modern Americans are uncomfortably OK with authoritarianism and have a poor understanding of the Separation of Powers. However, I don't know that showing neocon's authoritarian undergarments does justice to the subject.
I note, for example, that the Obama Administration's conduct in Libya and Syria suggest a similarly reckless disregard of underlying principles in the War Powers Act. So too, Presidents Clinton and Biden, certainly no "conservatives," were quite comfortable w/ treating inherent executive power to defend national interest as essentially limitable only by Congress and, at least w/r to the Obama and Biden Admins, not even limitable by Congress when it came to environmental and immigration regulation.
My point being that you seem to be laying solid groundwork for a critique of Imperial Presidents. I am w/ you on this and solidly share the concern that this cannot go anywhere good. However, your argument cannot be grounded well, or sufficiently encompassing on this tack b/c it is a trend across philosophical underpinnings of successive admins.