On..."Earned Success"

A few articles to share. It's been a while.

First Michael Barone ties together a number of ideas to formulate an idea that is overall pretty basic but is often ignored.
Barone writes

• They want public policies that enable them to earn success, and they resent policies that channel money to the politically well positioned or to those who have not made decisions and taken actions necessary for earned success. They want to be empowered, not patronized.

• (Walter Russell) Mead makes an even stronger point when he writes that "for large numbers of voters, the professional classes who staff the bureaucracies, foundations and policy institutes in and around government are themselves a special interest." One, he adds, that acts "only to protect their turf and fatten their purses."

Americans Want the Honor of "Earned Success"

The Tea Party's rise and success has been linked to both of these points, but especially the second one. Government has become a massive special interest and for those on the outside-looking-in resentment has been growing for some time. Continually throughout US history the people have rebelled from what they deemed an unnatural growth (and abuse) of power consolidated in one group's hands i.e. slave holders, Gilded Age capitalists, urban political machines. In all three cases, the federal government was strengthened to destroy (slave holders) or reduce (capitalists, political bosses) these power grabs. Now, the very monster they created to protect the republic is now seen by a growing minority to be the threat to the republic.

If there is one person who needs to be read it's Walter Russell Mead. His last few blog posts have been awesome, especially

The Writing on the Wall

It perhaps is the best long essay I've read all year.

His latest American Tinderbox is also very interesting.

On...Laying on the SOFA

The Unitary Executive Theory

You can all read George Will's take (with thanks to Kristen for the heads up) on a return to balance of power in foreign policy regarding the executive and the legislative. HERE It boils down to how much power should the executive (the president) have in terms of troop deployment, treaties, war, etc. without consulting Congress.

It is safe to say that the president has been taking more and more power in regards to this since the days of Andrew Jackson. In my best estimate you could also add Polk, Pierce, Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman through Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II as guilty of expanding the executive waistline to Taft-esque lengths. There are other gaps (the Virginia Dynasty Period [1801-1825], The Gilded Age [1866-1897], and the Twenties, where Congress dominated the other two branches and executive power either waned or more precisely I believe was held by an "inactive" executive, say a Coolidge or a Cleveland.

It did make me think of one of the conversations I had with Gordon Wood in 2007 about the expansion of executive power. He was worried about it. I agree. Executive power is like most government bureaucracies. Once it grows it is very hard to shrink it back.

Every war or crisis we encounter, say a civil war or 9/11 the executive takes more power. I believe if Gore had been president in 2001 he would have also expanded executive power, probably not as far as Bush but he would not have given Congress the lead. I also think in such moments the people believe a single person should take charge, should be out front, its an old trait that we haven't weened ourselves from the old tribal days. Bush learned this after Hurricane Katrina. He should have been on the next plane bossing people around. He wouldn't have gotten as much flack.

We want decision-makers and quick decisions, for better or worse. Legislatures debate and have motions and have committees and sub-committees and generally bore the hell out of people. Presidents in a crisis or war can take ACTION. They can make things happen. The mob gets sucked up in it. It's the whirlwind. And granted sometimes you definitely need that. But the fog of war can last a long time. And many congressmen are weak-willed. They are worried about reelection more than attacking a president who has the high-ground. They can be thrust into the national spotlight when they are ready or can worse yet look like a Kucinich or a Durbin.

When the gears of war start moving it rarely, and I mean rarely, stops. That's what I find really amusing about the war-protesters and pacifists. They never stop any wars from starting and they barely have any impact in slowing them down. Not even the hippies had any impact on really ending the war no matter how much they think. Nixon didn't give a damn about them. They never have in the history of the USA stopped a war. But yet they still try.

Maybe Unitary Executive Theory simply is a flaw of republican government in an uncertain world. Maybe being ever vigilant is probably the only solution. But I don't think it can be halted without a constitutional amendment, but all the consequences of such an action would need to be thought about or we could inadvertently put ourselves in a corner when push came to shove.