Will to Powerlessness
Paul raised an interesting question:
Is it not odd that, in a time when the country is increasingly open to the suggestion that the administrative entitlements state is on its last legs and that the moment has come for rolling back its encroachment on the prerogatives of the states and the rights of individuals, there is not one seasoned Republican officeholder capable of articulating the argument for limited government who is willing to step forward, shoulder the burden, seize the opportunity, and take the bull by the horns. What has this country become?
It's a fascinating question, isn't it? It's also a challenge to one of the principles through which I view the world. Men want power and will accrue as much of it as they can until something stops them. That's precisely why the Constitution is designed to prevent anyone from seizing all the power. But here we have the contrary problem: a cohort of men who are dangerously disinclined to seek power. Is there any historic precedent for that?
- Comment (60)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
The situation is difficult. Republicans are much more demanding of rationality and good character then dems. We don't give our candidates free rides like the one given to the idiot in the White House by the MSM. Meanwhile, the dems although completely incompetent at governing this country, are master propagandists. They know that the public and parts of the MSM have had it with them. However, they go on doing what they do best generating vicious false personal attacks on Republican candidates. The Perry sign thing is so false as to be laughable. The fact that Obambo and wife sat through hour after hour of psychotic hate vitriol by Jerimiah Wright (I call him the Rev. Wrong) for 20 years is dismissed as irrelevant.
What we will need to do is to stop probing each other for weakness and start being creative on the attack on Obama and company. For instance at synagogue over the weekend I asked someone "What's the differrence between Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Leon Panetta on Israel? Short answer. There isn't any! Blame Israel first, BiBi won't give in..blah..blah..blah. I got a big laugh from a tough crowd.
Edited on Oct 9, 2011 at 1:03pmDec '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
Hmmm. I guess I didn't actually answer your question Claire. The one famous historical precedent that I know of is General Sherman. Sherman had been key to winning the Civil War. His march to the sea captured the imagination of everyone. While Grant was locked in trench warfare around Richmond, Sherman turned north from Georgia and fought his way in behind Richmond and ended the war. He was phenomenally popular. The Republican Party was desperate for him to run. Unfortunately, as a field commander he had developed an extreme dislike for politics and an allergic reaction to Washington DC. In his famous speech he said "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve." Perhaps the most definitive choice not to seek power ever stated. It is a paradox that often the best do not want power because they know how banal and corrupting it is. Unfortunately, this leaves the field open for the worst. The worst is what is in the White House. Obambo is a combination of triviality, vitriol, and corruption.
It's time to cross the Delaware and attack the Hessians. Somebody must stand up in the boat!
Mar '11
Re: Will to Powerlessness
For the present, I confine my observations to this: whoever receives the nomination in 2012 will be running headlong into one of the worst economic environments in modern times and into the barrage of an openly hostile mass media that has proven itself willing to wildly distort the truth in the service of its preferred candidate and time and again has dragged the names and families of good people through the mud. The incumbent against whom the challenger would be running is a cultural celebrity and the first African-American President who was brought to office by the force of that celebrity and who, despite a terrible administration, remains personally popular with a wide sector of the populace. Meanwhile, some of the supporters on this challenger’s own side have expressed and demonstrated an iron willingness to hold office-holders feet to the fire in the service of ideological ends even if that resoluteness is unwise and impractical in the short run. Some of these same supporters seem willing to allow vitriol to trump the quieter prudence often needed to accomplish anything in politics.
Given all of that, is it really surprising that we don’t have better candidates?
Nov '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
"The country is increasingly open to the suggestion that the administrative entitlements state is on its last legs and that the moment has come for rolling back its encroachment on the prerogatives of the states and the rights of individuals". Precisely. That's not the same as saying everyone is aware of this, or that the crisis is acute enough for most people to reconsider the shortsightedness of their own entitlements. And you're talking about "seasoned officeholders" --none of whom could ever have become "seasoned" by taking a dim view of those entitlements. The candidates available to us are thus mostly members of a governing class. Thus I cannot agree that we have "a cohort of men who are dangerously disinclined to seek power." Who are they? I see many who calculate the odds, and do not take dubious risks with their careers. I do not see any wise constitutional fundamentalists sidelined for want of ambition.
Nov '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
I think the explanation for the paradox is simple.
For most aspiring politicians, left or right, it goes against the grain to advocate limited government, because it is the very extensiveness of government that affords them ever greater power and prestige.
Hence, to run on such a platform would generate intense cognitive dissonance.
The sad fact is this: most politicans, including Republicans, love government--with them in charge. Maybe they want different government; at best, they want lesser government; rarely, do they want limited government.
Ron Paul is one of the few politicians who has consistently advocated limited government. Yet is often derided here on Ricochet, and in the conservative mainstream, as a muppet.
I think this is one sign that the appetite for raw liberty, even among the governed, is limited. So I suspect the limited government platform, far from being a sure-fire winner, has limited prospects.
Hence: Romney.
Apparently, he isn't Obama. Well, hip, hip, hooray.
It's odd to think how a likeable lightweight like Cain is perhaps all that stands between the US and oblivion.
"How's that hopey-changey thing working out for ya?"
Edited on Oct 9, 2011 at 3:06amMay '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
I suppose you could cite George Washington's refusal to run for more than two terms, but I'm not ready to ascribe the same level of nobility to the Republicans refusing to run now. The only way I can begin to cheer up about this is to remind myself that at least our most promising allies are the polar opposites of William Jennings Bryan.
Jul '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
I think the likeliest scenario is Romney will be the nominee and will lose because of his Mormonism. Evangelicals will reject him for that and Democrats are gearing up to characterize Mormons as "weird." De Toqueville predicted that the squalor of democratic politics in this country would turn decent men away, leaving its practice to the self-interested and corruptible.
Aug '11
Re: Will to Powerlessness
Let us consider the potential field of Republican candidates for the presidency: perhaps a dozen current or former Governors; a dozen current or former Senators; a dozen or so Congressmen.
Now take a close look at these characters. Don't they look a little...sleek? Well-fed?
And what of their wives; their adult children? Prosperous? Well-employed in the types of jobs that thrive on the margins of government - lobbyists or lawyers for special interests?
The sad fact is that for those with long experience in the "business" of politics at this level, wetting one's beak - and the beaks of one's relatives - becomes as natural as gravity.
For a Republican, under the glare of media scrutiny, this sort of thing becomes -as it rightly should - a scandal. To throw one's hat into the presidential ring is to risk disgrace. Better to let sleeping dogs like.
For Democrats, of course, such corruption is simply shrugged off by the media. Tony Rezko? Hillary Clinton's cattle-futures profits? To even mention such things about a Democrat is nothing but gutter politics.
Mar '11
Re: Will to Powerlessness
"not one seasoned Republican officeholder" I guess Michele Bachmann isn't seasoned.
Nov '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
Perhaps it's the waning of duty as a compelling factor. Charlie Cook spoke to a PAC to which I belong recently. I asked him why Ryan, Daniels, & Christie chose not to run. He said Ryan was a wonk that didn't have the burning desire to be President. Well, Washington, Coolidge, and Eisenhower didn't have the desire either, but they answered their country's call to duty. Cook said Daniels situation with his wife was what dissuaded him. Cook said something like "who would want to do a thousand interviews about their worst mistake". I suppose my answer would be no one, but that's what duty entails sometimes. Certainly it couldn't be worse than what happened to Nathan Hale whose only regret was that he had but one life to give for his country. Where is that level of commitment to duty that has compelled great, but reluctant men to service before? Perhaps it only exists in the lower echelons now.. With someone like Dakota Meyer. Well, more is the pity and faster will be the decline of American civilization if our most capable leaders let trivial things like desire or embarrassment keep them from their duties. We lament.
Aug '11
Re: Will to Powerlessness
Actually, she's not. She's only been in Congress since 2007, and her record of legislative accomplishment is....zero.
May '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
This is only true if you take "men" as an aggregate. It's certainly not true that every individual seeks power. Many, aware that it corrupts, eschew it.
Some "seasoned office holders" may (let us hope) be realistic and self-aware enough to judge either that they couldn't win or that if they did win, they would't be prepared to govern ably. Any potential Republican nominee knows that his entire past will be viciously scrutinized and exposed to the public.
What if he once hired an illegal alien? What if he once had an affair? What if his spouse was addicted to painkillers? What if his daughter has an eating disorder? History gives us reason to fear "stories" like that could both sink the candidate and permanently injure his family. Hence, the desires to see Obama defeated and to protect his personal life from characters assassinations converge on the choice not to run.
May '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
None of these men has a duty to run for President.
They do have definite duties toward their families.
Jan '11
Re: Will to Powerlessness
For Republican candidates, an important factor is that it's a ten year commitment, as Haley Barbour said, and those ten years will be filled with unrelenting opposition from the media. Look at the Lawrence O'Donnell interview with Herman Cain. Do you want that for the next ten years? Do you want to put your family through that for ten years?
Also, look at the "schedule." Let's suppose you get elected, and the GOP takes the House and Senate. Even then, unless you get a filibuster-proof majority, you're going to spend your first two years undoing Obama, and little of what you would have wanted to do. By then, (if pattern holds) the midyear elections will take away your working majority anyway. So you likely have two years of opportunity, and even under the best conditions, you're not going to do what you want.
But if a GOP president can do the dirty work for this term, things look much better in 2016. For one thing, the Democrats have no one in the bullpen.
Either way, you won't have any fun until 2016 anyway, so why stick your neck out now?
Sep '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
Bush needed Part D to buy votes for his reelection but did not want to raise taxes or cut spending to pay for it. Ryan wanted to ensure that he would move up the party power structure in the House and voted for it. Putting one's political interests before the country's even if it means insuring that the walk down the road to serfdom continues is how a Republican office holder gets seasoned. Ryan is not disinclined to seek power. He simply views not seeking the office at the present time as what is best for his career.
Aug '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
Isn't it time for Stephen Ambrose to write a book about the brave and courageous men who built a third rail girdling our country ?
Unfortunately, Mr Ambrose has been dead for almost 10 years, but the title rings a bell. "Nothing Like It In the World" . Indeed.
Edited on Oct 9, 2011 at 6:38amSep '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
I'd suggest that the death of the entitlement state is mathematical, but it's support is deeply cultural. In our hearts, we know that the government is supposed to take care of our needs. Most of us have never seen anything different and don't believe there is anything but the government that can play that role.
I think the end of the entitlement state will have to come through paroxysms of financial ruin only because we won't let go of it any other way. Let's just hope that when it all ends, our culture changes with it. It didn't in Argentina. They still elect Peronists despite the repeated failure of Peronism.
Sep '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
Gov Daniels has proved he is not adverse to seeking and exercising power. I might be wrong but I interpret his refusal as a move to protect his wife. I believe a national campaign could prove to be damaging to her. Some people’s history and temperament makes exposing them to the cesspool orgies that campaigns have become dangerous and could prove to be damaging for her. Finding fault with his decision to protect her is difficult for me. If he chose to do otherwise he would not be the person he is and I would not find him as impressive.
May '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
I find this rudely presumptuous. Are the stated reasons of an apparently good and sincere man so implausible that we are justified in publicly imputing lower motives plus dishonesty?
Dec '10
Re: Will to Powerlessness
“The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.” (Mencken, “known as the "Sage of Baltimore", is regarded as one of the most influential American writers and prose stylists of the first half of the 20th century.”).
John McCain, ostensible prototype of the man of power, by power, for power, a Republican establishment nominee who lost the election to our historic first Islamic apostate president, ran his campaign consistent with the gist of Crow’s Nest and Mencken’s judgment of our zeitgeist: He folded as if he were playing a hand with a pair against one with five jokers, and jokers win. He more or less announced he would not take on the legacy of having fought against a person of color wanting to lead our nation, even if into ruin.