Governor vs. President

 

Many have lamented the growing intensity of opposition between the two balkanized factions of US Politics. Some are not so concerned, chalking it up to politics as usual. Others are a little less lackadaisical over the whole affair. Personally, I’m in the latter group. Another observation nearly everyone agrees on is that the central government has grown astronomically since the last time things felt so fractious.

It appears that the bigger Washington DC gets and the further into our lives it reaches, the more existential it is to control the levers of that power. Our fights over who should be president are a part of that battle and that is becoming increasingly more rancorous.

Currently, it seems that what we need are presidents who rein in the centralized power of the federal government and governors that push back against it. In effect, like moving a very heaving something, someone doing the pulling (the President) and someone doing the pushing (Governors).

We want strong governors. People who can stand up against the left and be strong against the federal government are necessary to govern our states. In contrast, we are needing Presidents that are willing to exercise the full authority of the office of president while refusing to step outside of those bounds. Recent Republican history shows the opposite of this. We have governors who bow to the federal government and refuse to enact any kind of social measures that their constituents want. Our presidents have been weak in the responsibilities of their office, delegating more and more to the administrative state, while pushing issues far outside the purview of the federal government onto the states. Consider No Child Left Behind – this was a state issue. It had no business being legislated at the federal level. However, the RFRA or the ND Trans-Sports bill that came across Doug Burgum’s desk were exactly the kind of things states have a right to pass.

The strengths we admire in some of our governors may not be utilized to the best of their ability when applied to the office of president. We may want to be careful with who we push into that office. We need both offices to re-establish a healthy equilibrium between states and the federal government.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 27 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    What we need are good, strong leaders who understand the differing roles of the State and Federal government and aggressively push back against the forces that are breaking those roles.

    • #1
  2. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    It’s an interesting discussion. Typically one wants strong executive types as President, so we look to governors, military leaders, or CEOs. With an expanded administrative state, we need a Hercules to clean out the stable. We also need strong governors to embrace the 10th amendment and tell the feds to pound sand and stay out of the state’s business.

    • #2
  3. Postmodern Hoplite Coolidge
    Postmodern Hoplite
    @PostmodernHoplite

    This is an interesting question, and a topic worthy of being promoted to the Main Feed. I recommend it strongly.

    Underlying the problem is the reality that the 1787 Constitution as written by the Founders and ratified by the several states is no longer the actual framework of the U.S. Government. Starting with FDR (who was building upon the administration of Woodrow Wilson), by 1945, what had been “Constitution 1.0” had become “Constitution 2.0” with the Executive Branch stronger than the Legislative. Then, starting in 1964, LBJ further grew the Executive, creating what can now be recognized as the Administrative State. By 1972, this had become “Constitution 2.5.” The Obama Administration completed the transformation to “Constitution 3.0,” weaponizing the Administrative State to use the power of the Executive branch on behalf of the Washington DC establishment.

    The question is, how do the several states claw back the power and authority originally vested to them in Constitution 1.0?

    • #3
  4. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Then, starting in 1964, LBJ further grew the Executive, creating what can now be recognized as the Administrative State. By 1972, this had become “Constitution 2.5.” The Obama Administration completed the transformation to “Constitution 3.0,” weaponizing the Administrative State to use the power of the

    What is counterintuitive about this expansion of the administrative state is that it made the actual office of president weak if the entrenched administration dislikes that president. The proper exercise of presidential power may actually look authoritarian to us now because it would mean putting the administrative bureaucracy back in its place – as in eliminating them. Imagine the uproar if a president abolished the FBI. Corrupt! Corrupt! Or fired DOJ that refused to follow his direction? Authoritarian!

    No such thing. That’s the proper authority of the presidential office.

    • #4
  5. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    Speaking of governors, the New Yorker ran a hit piece on RDS. The essence of their criticism is that he… doesn’t act like a conventional politician.

    “Ron’s strength as a politician is that he doesn’t give a f**k. . . . Ron’s weakness as a politician is that he doesn’t give a f**k. Big donors? He doesn’t give a s**t. Cancels on them all the time.”

    A politician who cancels on big donors? Jamais dans la vie!

    Anyway, RDS took an unprecedented step for a governor, after the hit piece, by endorsing candidates in local school board elections based on their responses to an issues survey. This is beneath the notice of most governors, but RDS has shown that he, like Trump, is willing to fight the left on their territory.

     

    • #5
  6. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):
    With an expanded administrative state, we need a Hercules to clean out the stable.

    Yep.  Not only the caca, but the horses that produce it . . .

    • #6
  7. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Stina: Currently, it seems that what we need are presidents that reign in the centralized power of the federal government and governors that push back against it. In effect, like moving a very heaving something, someone doing the pulling (the President) and someone doing the pushing (Governors).

    I don’t think that this will be an effective strategy.  In fact, in a way, it’s been what we’ve seen over the past several Republican administrations.

    Democratic Presidents use the powers of the federal government to push their Leftist agenda at the national level.  Republican Presidents, for the most part, leave these things to the states, rather than pushing a Right-wing agenda on the national level.  I realize that there are some exceptions to this, but I do think that it’s been the general rule.

    Doesn’t this create a one-way ratchet?

    • #7
  8. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Stina (View Comment):

    Then, starting in 1964, LBJ further grew the Executive, creating what can now be recognized as the Administrative State. By 1972, this had become “Constitution 2.5.” The Obama Administration completed the transformation to “Constitution 3.0,” weaponizing the Administrative State to use the power of the

    What is counterintuitive about this expansion of the administrative state is that it made the actual office of president weak if the entrenched administration dislikes that president. The proper exercise of presidential power may actually look authoritarian to us now because it would mean putting the administrative bureaucracy back in its place – as in eliminating them. Imagine the uproar if a president abolished the FBI. Corrupt! Corrupt! Or fired DOJ that refused to follow his direction? Authoritarian!

    No such thing. That’s the proper authority of the presidential office.

    I have a question about the part that I put in bold.

    What do you mean by “authoritarian”?

    It’s not just you, Stina.  This seems to be an almost worthless word these days.  It generally seems to mean something like: “an insulting term that I use for enforcement of any law or policy that I don’t like.”

    It seems to be used by people who reject the idea of authority.  The technical term for such people is anarchist, I think.

    • #8
  9. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Stina: Currently, it seems that what we need are presidents that reign in the centralized power of the federal government and governors that push back against it. In effect, like moving a very heaving something, someone doing the pulling (the President) and someone doing the pushing (Governors).

    I don’t think that this will be an effective strategy. In fact, in a way, it’s been what we’ve seen over the past several Republican administrations.

    Democratic Presidents use the powers of the federal government to push their Leftist agenda at the national level. Republican Presidents, for the most part, leave these things to the states, rather than pushing a Right-wing agenda on the national level. I realize that there are some exceptions to this, but I do think that it’s been the general rule.

    Doesn’t this create a one-way ratchet?

    The only president we have seen that worked within the proper confines of the office is Trump. And we have not seen adequate pushback from governors against excess.

    In my lifetime, the only R president was Bush and Trump. Bush did not work within the confines of his office. NCLB was NOT appropriate for government action.

    But also, we need Rs willing to work FULLY in the confines of the office. Removing the administrative state is within the purview of that office.

    • #9
  10. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    And you are forgetting the other half – governors have to push back. They need to be unafraid of the federal government.

    • #10
  11. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Then, starting in 1964, LBJ further grew the Executive, creating what can now be recognized as the Administrative State. By 1972, this had become “Constitution 2.5.” The Obama Administration completed the transformation to “Constitution 3.0,” weaponizing the Administrative State to use the power of the

    What is counterintuitive about this expansion of the administrative state is that it made the actual office of president weak if the entrenched administration dislikes that president. The proper exercise of presidential power may actually look authoritarian to us now because it would mean putting the administrative bureaucracy back in its place – as in eliminating them. Imagine the uproar if a president abolished the FBI. Corrupt! Corrupt! Or fired DOJ that refused to follow his direction? Authoritarian!

    No such thing. That’s the proper authority of the presidential office.

    I have a question about the part that I put in bold.

    What do you mean by “authoritarian”?

    It’s not just you, Stina. This seems to be an almost worthless word these days. It generally seems to mean something like: “an insulting term that I use for enforcement of any law or policy that I don’t like.”

    It seems to be used by people who reject the idea of authority. The technical term for such people is anarchist, I think.

    I think what people mean by that is what you say. Bad things, man.

    I use it in a nod to that, but meaning working outside their proper authority. My point in the above, though, was to point out these actions are within the proper authority of the president and we should not be overwrought when the president exercised his authority in this manner.

    • #11
  12. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Stina (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Stina: Currently, it seems that what we need are presidents that reign in the centralized power of the federal government and governors that push back against it. In effect, like moving a very heaving something, someone doing the pulling (the President) and someone doing the pushing (Governors).

    I don’t think that this will be an effective strategy. In fact, in a way, it’s been what we’ve seen over the past several Republican administrations.

    Democratic Presidents use the powers of the federal government to push their Leftist agenda at the national level. Republican Presidents, for the most part, leave these things to the states, rather than pushing a Right-wing agenda on the national level. I realize that there are some exceptions to this, but I do think that it’s been the general rule.

    Doesn’t this create a one-way ratchet?

    The only president we have seen that worked within the proper confines of the office is Trump. And we have not seen adequate pushback from governors against excess.

    In my lifetime, the only R president was Bush and Trump. Bush did not work within the confines of his office. NCLB was NOT appropriate for government action.

    But also, we need Rs willing to work FULLY in the confines of the office. Removing the administrative state is within the purview of that office.

    OK, NCLB is No Child Left Behind, right?

    What is the principle here?  That the federal government is not to be involved in education?  Because it is, and has been, for a long time.  When was the Northwest Ordinance again?  1785 or so?  Before we even had a Constitution, though if I recall correctly, it was re-adopted under the Constitution.

    NCLB, though, was quite minor.  How about push-back on abortion?  Or on sodomy?  Or on pro-black, anti-white racism and the black privilege system of racial preferences?  How about hammering every single college, university, and school that gave special treatment to black students, yanking their federal funding, firing their administrators and diversity bureaucrats?

    We get almost none of that.

    • #12
  13. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Stina:

    I don’t think that this will be an effective strategy. In fact, in a way, it’s been what we’ve seen over the past several Republican administrations.

    Democratic Presidents use the powers of the federal government to push their Leftist agenda at the national level. Republican Presidents, for the most part, leave these things to the states, rather than pushing a Right-wing agenda on the national level. I realize that there are some exceptions to this, but I do think that it’s been the general rule.

    Doesn’t this create a one-way ratchet?

    The only president we have seen that worked within the proper confines of the office is Trump. And we have not seen adequate pushback from governors against excess.

    In my lifetime, the only R president was Bush and Trump. Bush did not work within the confines of his office. NCLB was NOT appropriate for government action.

    But also, we need Rs willing to work FULLY in the confines of the office. Removing the administrative state is within the purview of that office.

    OK, NCLB is No Child Left Behind, right?

    What is the principle here? That the federal government is not to be involved in education? Because it is, and has been, for a long time. When was the Northwest Ordinance again? 1785 or so? Before we even had a Constitution, though if I recall correctly, it was re-adopted under the Constitution.

    NCLB, though, was quite minor. How about push-back on abortion? Or on sodomy? Or on pro-black, anti-white racism and the black privilege system of racial preferences? How about hammering every single college, university, and school that gave special treatment to black students, yanking their federal funding, firing their administrators and diversity bureaucrats?

    We get almost none of that.

    We cannot be fighting over the federal government. Abortion, sodomy… the fed has no business being involved in these disputes. The more it is, the worse it is for the country. The more incentive to steal elections. The more we are likely to end up in a shooting war. These HAVE to be decided by the states. People who don’t want restrictive abortion laws can move to a place that does. Let the success and failure of those policies be isolated to the states and not let one bad policy, pushed on us by an oversized central state, affect all 50.

    I don’t think this double whammy (presidents staying in their lane and governors enacting strong social positions) will be a ratchet left. If an inappropriate bill passes congress, the president can refuse to sign it. This isn’t our job. It belongs with the states. Appoint federalist judges. If done right, I think it can weaken federal government by forcing constituents to go to their states for the policies they want. Which is where it should be.

    • #13
  14. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    The expectation of Federal dollars has weakened the spine of state and local governments.   

    • #14
  15. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    I can think of only one truly strong governor currently in office, and that would be deSantis.

    I am not familiar at all with Burgum. But because of you mentioning them, I will look into their record.

    • #15
  16. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    I can think of only one truly strong governor currently in office, and that would be deSantis.

    I am not familiar at all with Burgum. But because of you mentioning them, I will look into their record.

    It ain’t good.

    • #16
  17. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    The expectation of Federal dollars has weakened the spine of state and local governments.

    This is probably the most powerful part of higher (federal) government: to tax states, tell them what to do, and to withhold returning any tax money unless they comply.

    • #17
  18. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    The expectation of Federal dollars has weakened the spine of state and local governments.

    This is probably the most powerful part of higher (federal) government: to tax states, tell them what to do, and to withhold returning any tax money unless they comply.

    And take a big cut for overhead. 

    • #18
  19. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    The expectation of Federal dollars has weakened the spine of state and local governments.

    This is probably the most powerful part of higher (federal) government: to tax states, tell them what to do, and to withhold returning any tax money unless they comply.

    If the Founding Fathers had forseen that loophole, they would have closed it.

    • #19
  20. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    The expectation of Federal dollars has weakened the spine of state and local governments.

    This is probably the most powerful part of higher (federal) government: to tax states, tell them what to do, and to withhold returning any tax money unless they comply.

    And take a big cut for overhead.

    Yeah, when I was a kid public servants were paid less than private sector, but has a certain respect, and no one was going to force them out immediately prior to retirement.  Now they make a lot more than private sector, and their retirement seems to be almost as much as their base salary.

    • #20
  21. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    Clavius (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    The expectation of Federal dollars has weakened the spine of state and local governments.

    This is probably the most powerful part of higher (federal) government: to tax states, tell them what to do, and to withhold returning any tax money unless they comply.

    If the Founding Fathers had forseen that loophole, they would have closed it.

    Yes, they didn’t have income tax back then.  Could they have foreseen that?

    • #21
  22. Al Sparks Thatcher
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    The problem is structural.  In the long term, the presidents who hold office are going to be politicians who will disappoint.  Only a few will be great.  Only one president in the twentieth century – a strong former governor and mayor to boot – made it a point to reduce the power of the office and the federal government.  It wasn’t Ronald Reagan, though he did admire Calvin Coolidge and had his portrait prominently displayed somewhere in the White House (Oval Office?).

    Presidents (and all governors and medium to big city mayors) actually have very little control of the executive branch.  The reason is they not only can’t fire everyone, they can’t fire most federal employees, without cause.  That reform was instituted in the 1880’s.  The result is that our elected officials have less opportunity to be corrupt, but also have less of that control, and that means by extension that voters have less of that control too.

    Another structural change was direct election of U.S. senators.  It gave state governments less institutional power over the federal government.

    Yet another was removing restrictions to the federal government’s ability to tax (the income tax amendment passed in 1909).  Before then, and a few decades after, a taxpayer paid most of his taxes to the local and state governments.  Now taxpayers pay most of their taxes to the federal government and allow their congressmen “to bring home the pork” in the form of grants that have strings attached to those local governments who, from a practical matter, gave up or lost most of their power to tax by virtue of the feds taking up all the available taxation space.

    When you give the federal government all that power, expecting that you will be able to elect an extra virtual person to the presidency who will make things right is simply unrealistic.  One such person isn’t enough.  You need 4-5 presidents in a row like that.  Calvin Coolidge was replaced by Herbert Hoover and then Franklin Roosevelt, both of whom expanded the federal government.

    And despite the fact that we have presidential term limits hasn’t solved the problem.  The prospect of a presidential incumbent one day leaving office doesn’t seem to stop him from making the institution he’s a part of more powerful, even though he will be governed by it once he is gone.

    So it’s the structure that needs attention, not who we elect.

    • #22
  23. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    It very basic.  If we do not select a president who dismantles most of the bureaucracy and  returns the money to states the Republic will continue to end.  I’d say if the Democrats can steal the next election, it’s over.  Let’s not forget the Chinese have huge influence on Biden and while they may not have the same hold on the next Democrat, they may not need it.  Who on earth do the Democrats have that can stand up to the giant falling cost companies that think they need China.   Folks think that we’ll sort it out with time.  That is precisely what China fears. 

    • #23
  24. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    What is the principle here?  That the federal government is not to be involved in education? 

    Yes.

    But if the Federal government is going to be involved, it should be limited to redistributing money for facilities and teachers to ensure underserved areas have good school.  Attaching social engineering strings to those dollars is what’s making Fed gov’t involvement in education intrusive . . .

    • #24
  25. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    I Walton (View Comment):

    It very basic. If we do not select a president who dismantles most of the bureaucracy and returns the money to states the Republic will continue to end. I’d say if the Democrats can steal the next election, it’s over. Let’s not forget the Chinese have huge influence on Biden and while they may not have the same hold on the next Democrat, they may not need it. Who on earth do the Democrats have that can stand up to the giant falling cost companies that think they need China. Folks think that we’ll sort it out with time. That is precisely what China fears.

    It’s not just China.  It’s the WEF and the Davos financial set.

    • #25
  26. JAW3 Coolidge
    JAW3
    @JohnWilson

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):

    This is an interesting question, and a topic worthy of being promoted to the Main Feed. I recommend it strongly.

    Underlying the problem is the reality that the 1787 Constitution as written by the Founders and ratified by the several states is no longer the actual framework of the U.S. Government. Starting with FDR (who was building upon the administration of Woodrow Wilson), by 1945, what had been “Constitution 1.0” had become “Constitution 2.0” with the Executive Branch stronger than the Legislative. Then, starting in 1964, LBJ further grew the Executive, creating what can now be recognized as the Administrative State. By 1972, this had become “Constitution 2.5.” The Obama Administration completed the transformation to “Constitution 3.0,” weaponizing the Administrative State to use the power of the Executive branch on behalf of the Washington DC establishment.

    The question is, how do the several states claw back the power and authority originally vested to them in Constitution 1.0?

    First we clean up the election process so that leaders are truly elected honestly and with able to accept the consent of the governed.  I can with certainty suggest that clean elections will pull the country to the real center right and marginalize the loons running things now.  Just sayin.  

    • #26
  27. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Stad (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    What is the principle here? That the federal government is not to be involved in education?

    Yes.

    But if the Federal government is going to be involved, it should be limited to redistributing money for facilities and teachers to ensure underserved areas have good school. Attaching social engineering strings to those dollars is what’s making Fed gov’t involvement in education intrusive . . .

    We need to get the federal government out of education.  It was a bad policy of the Carter administration.  Why centralize the opportunities for Teacher’s Unions lobbying efforts.  Objectively the US’es ratings have declined in global education standards since the department of education was founded.  It isn’t working we should disband it.

    • #27
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.