Rand Paul and the Imperial Presidency
Rand Paul has, so far, been pretty good on issues of national security. Maybe not quite as staunchly anti-war as his father, but that remains to be seen. Via Sullivan, however, this really terrific Rand Paul quote:
I was happy to see that Newt Gingrich has staked out a position on the war, a position, or two, or maybe three. I don’t know. I think he has more war positions than he’s had wives. […] There’s a big debate over there. Fox News can’t decide, what do they love more, bombing the Middle East or bashing the president? It’s like I was over there and there was an anchor going, they were pleading, can’t we do both? Can’t we bomb the Middle East and bash the president at the same time?
I may have disagreements with the Pauls or with guys like Gary Johnson, but I can say with some certainty that at this point, if you were to put any of them up against the current president, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. Failure to close Gitmo is one thing. Ramping up another middle east war is quite another. Doing so without any democratic process save a UN vote? Well…
We are governed by an executive that goes to war in secret and at will, openly contemptuous of the democratic process and even minimal transparency. and when you realize that that executive actually campaigned against this kind of secretive, dictatorial presidency, you realize how this has become systemic, and the anti-democratic rot is deep.
I take back my earlier criticism of Andrew’s position. I saw him wavering and thought he was capitulating to Obama’s super-charm on Libya. Glad to see I was wrong.
In any case, I think Andrew is absolutely correct: we are witnessing yet another imperial presidency, and a system of executive power that is growing in . The war on drugs, the constant, endless overseas wars, the massive defense budget and growing security state – these are the most important issues facing this country. In many ways, these issues are also the ones most aversely effecting our economy. The money and waste we piss away endlessly on bombs and prisons and SWAT teams could be better put to use in the economy or helping pay for much needed investments in infrastructure or education.
How many teachers do you need to fire to pay for one Tomahawk missile?
P.S. – Okay, so maybe I wouldn’t vote for the younger Paul. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist icon at this point, and I think he or Johnson would be good for the country because of their positions on drugs and war. Rand Paul is too untested, and I’m not sure where he really stands.
I would also vote for someone like Feingold or one of the many progressive non-interventionists out there. There’s good people on these issues on both sides of the aisle. My point was that – even though I disagree with Paul or Johnson on innumerable issues of domestic policy, these issues where we agree are hugely important. I cannot overstate their importance to the future of our republic.
Sometimes a cigar’s just a cigar. The dreaded laundry list just muddles things, EDK.
The issue here is Libya, the “imperial president” is Barack Obama.
“If they didn’t need congressional authorization here in these circumstances, can you tell me under what circumstances you’d ever need congressional authorization if we’re going into a war? Nobody answered [that] question,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.). “The administration and its lawyers believed they had the authority under the War Powers Act.
http://patterico.com/2011/03/31/the-obama-administration-in-contempt-of-congress-on-libya-and-the-underpants-gnome-theory-of-war/
this is Obama’s theory of how to win the war:
Step 1: Enforce a No-Fly Zone
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Regime Change!
Oy.Report
I’m glad to see Tom addressing this from an objective, informed perspective.Report
Actually, Mr. Chris, I thought quoting Jerry Nadler [D-NY] was a principled touch.
Please get off my back, sir, unless you have some substance to add.Report
Please get off my back, sir, unless you have some substance to add.
Hello Pot, this is the Kettle calling. (See previous thread.)
Anyway, nonpartisan and objective are two different things. Your ignorance is obvious. I suppose, then, that pointing out the obvious doesn’t amount to substance. So off your back I will get.Report
To be honest, though, the executive is the least democratic branch of our government. Even the Supreme Court has multiple members. So we shouldn’t be surprised if the executive is openly contemptuous of democracy or fails to abide by democratic norms. It’s not designed to be democratic in any way, it’s meant as a place to store dictatorial powers and that’s why Congress has all sorts of authority to hamper it.
The problem is not the imperial presidency, it’s Congress’s complete abdication of any form of executive oversight. But that shouldn’t surprise much either: the presidency is a good media tool and the two parties will never seek to undermine it. If we had 6 parties, you’d see a lot less of this because most of the parties would have no stake in executive power.Report
“To be honest, though, the executive is the least democratic branch of our government.”
Indeed, countries that use presidential systems without term limits have a tendency of have “President-for-life”, think Ben-Ali, Mubarak, Saleh.
The presidency remains a more popular branch of government than congress, in my opinion, because congressman and senators for the most part are for life, save for a small number of swing seats that switch.
Still, I don’t favor absolute term limits – there are some good people that should stay there. Rather, I favor limits on consecutive terms, which eliminates the power of incumbency but allows the truly deserving to return, competing as challengers rather than incumbents.
Experience is legitimately valuable, but so are new people and new ideas, consecutive term limits strike the best balance, as well as helping to combat the revolving-door effect – representatives are likely to do more ethical work when they’re of of term if they think they can come back. Also, the limit of terms reduces the time they have to use the power of their office to make “connections”.
“If we had 6 parties, you’d see a lot less of this because most of the parties would have no stake in executive power.”
Winner-Takes-All systems, over time, always devolve into two-party systems, this is called “Duverger’s law”
There are a number of different proportional representation systems, while probably better than Winner-takes-all, have their own problems. In any case it’s extremely unlikely such a drastic change would be implemented in the U.S. on a federal level,
On a state level, many early states used some forms for a while, municipalities even longer – often to break the power of political machines – and some still do.
But, of course, individual state legislative experimentation in general are rare now, eclipsed by federal laws and bureaucracies. Though there doesn’t seem to yet be any laws against states using PR.Report
E.D. –
I may have disagreements with the Pauls or with guys like Gary Johnson, but I can say with some certainty that at this point, if you were to put any of them up against the current president, I would vote for them in a heartbeat.
After which, I’d say within 12 months of inauguration as we start bombing Iran, you’d be profoundly disappointed that your preferred candidate had succumbed to the wishes of the oligarchy, the military/industrial complex and his congressional caucuses.Report
This is all so much mendacious handwringing. Call me a vengeful old bastard, I remember the Munich disco bombing and the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing and Qadhafi’s role in the Munich Olympic atrocities.
But most of all, I remember Abu Nidal and Libya’s role in the El Al massacres at Rome and Vienna.
Anyone who pretends this invasion isn’t completely justified by American deaths has political amnesia. Before we predicate our calculus on how many teachers are fired per Tomahawk, I would grimly observe there’s enough American blood on Qadhafi’s hands to justify at least a few.Report
I’m pretty sure our next target will be France. I can’t believe we’ve let these atrocities committed against our merchant sailors go unpunished by invasion for so long!
Seriously, though, this seems nonsensical to me. Is Gaddafi a bad dude? Yeah. Should he be punished for his actions in the past? Yeah. Does this mean that we should be bombing the country, potentially arming the rebels, etc.? That’s a huge leap. Are we going to go around punishing everyone who’s done us wrong, often decades after the fact, with military force?Report
France really did get off lucky there though. Look at the war of 1812- really it was started by Napoleon in Berlin, 1806, when he issued his decree against trading with Britain. They responded with a blockade a few months later (really just making official what was already happening) and the US eventually went to war with Britain over it! My theory is that there was still kinship between the sister revolutions at that time. But, yes, I am okay with the US letting the issue of late 1700s piracy go at this point. In exchange for Carla Bruni.Report
I have a feeling that in the near future the political debates in the US are going to be between one side saying, “We’re totally broke. We can’t afford anything… except butter” And the other side will be saying, “We’re totally broke. We can’t afford anything… except guns”. And the funny thing is that, for the first time in my life, I haven’t the slightest clue who is going to be pushing for guns and who is going to push for butter.Report
In the current lay of the land, everyone is pushing for guns and no one is pushing for butter.Report
Is it fair to blame Obama for failing to close GTMO? He tried a few different ways to do it quickly and got support from Illinois to transfer prisoners there. Congress made that impossible (over the impassioned objections of Durbin and others). He’s seemingly winnowed down the population as quickly as possible as willing countries are found to receive prisoners (which is the real problem; GTMO Midwest would be no better). Has he been adding prisoners without charging them with anything?
Banning torture and renditions and pledging to close GTMO were his first acts as President. I think it’s likely that he’s done everything he can within the law up to this point. Moving the prisoners by fiat and spending Defense money outside of where Congress approved it to be spent would be break other, less serious, principles and likely gin up another round of anti-Muslim bigotry.Report
Great skewering of Newt and Fox. Unfortunately, it’s from a roast, which is the only time politicians are allowed to tell the truth.Report
Thank goodness for short attention spans and the amount of nuance it requires to differentiate between a quote taken in context of a roast and a quote taken out of context entirely.Report
I think I don’t get your point.
But if there were anyone in public life who told that amount of truth all the time, I’d vote for him.Report
“I may have disagreements with the Pauls or with guys like Gary Johnson, but I can say with some certainty that at this point, if you were to put any of them up against the current president, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. ”
Would you really vote for Rand Paul? Would you really vote for a less-than-one-term senator, given our recent experiences?Report
If you honestly think that Rand Paul would do less damage than a second Obama term you’ve wandered deep into the swamps. The man is a complete fruitbat.Report
I have a suspicion that he wouldn’t necessarily have bombed Libya.
Does that sort of thing not count?Report
Unless we admit a new rule where we can count unicorns before they are foaled. I recall another freshman senator acting like he knew everything some while back.Report
While that is certainly true (and well said), I do find myself beginning to wonder if we might have to rely on “fruitbats” to not bomb places.
The reasonable and rational can’t seem to avoid it, after all.
Maybe we should explore “crazy”.Report
Obviously it’s crazy to bomb regimes intent on killing their own people. Obviously.Report
pour encourager les autresReport
Because obviously the only solution to other people killing people is to kill people ourselves. Because, you know, we’re the good guys, so its okay. Or something.Report
I would not be above issuing some propaganda to the effect we were going to bomb the Qadhafi supporters with Democrazine gas. If you inhale a few picograms of this stuff, you suddenly feel the need to form political parties, make speeches and have elections.Report
Have you no humanity, sir?Report
I don’t think the inexperience has much to do with it. Can you name a well-seasoned senator who would be successfully standing up to the war machine right now? Preferably one who has sought the office?
McCain – nope; H. Clinton – nope… Ron Paul might have tried, but he would have been steamrolled by his caucuses in the Senate and House.Report
There is a General of recent renown who I’d like to paraphrase and, I hope, explain the problem.
Boots on the Ground
Boots on the Ground
Lookin’ like a fool
With your boots on the Ground
With the oil in your mouth
Map turned sideways
Boots hit the ground
Call yourself a cool cat
With your boots on the ground
Walkin’ downtown with your boots on the ground!
Giddy-up
Hey! Get your boots off the ground!
Lookin like a fool!Report
Rand Paul quotes a certain ex-senator
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
—Sen. Obama, of course, 2007Report