Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Caesarism Comes to the Republican Party
Among a very long list of harms inflicted upon the United States by Barack Obama and his party, perhaps the worst was Caesarism. Obama relished the worship of millions in 2008. From his star turn at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he was treated not as a political candidate, but as a savior. Progressives fell into a swoon, typified by Newsweek editor Evan Thomas’ 2008 comment, “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world; he’s sort of God.”
Now, a similar kind of unreasoning adulation is greeting (improbably enough) Donald Trump. Fred Barnes reports that a focus group of Trump supporters is swept up in a kind of worship, too: “He’s not just their favorite candidate. Their tie to him is almost mystical. He’s a kind of political savior, someone who says what they think.”
If Obama had accepted the reverence of the crowd but governed as a normal president, his sin would have been merely aesthetic. But he did not. Contempt for law and tradition has been the hallmark of his presidency. His lawlessness makes Richard Nixon’s look penny ante.
In addition to his blatantly illegal grant of legal status to 4 million illegal immigrants — a move Obama himself declared he lacked the authority to make — Obama has acted as an autocrat in dozens of other instances. Without any legal basis, he imposed a fine on BP after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and unilaterally suspended offshore drilling. He bypassed the plain language of Obamacare multiple times, whenever enforcing the unpopular or unworkable aspects of the law would be politically inconvenient. (The employer mandate, for example, was supposed to go into effect on January 1, 2014.) He attempted to make recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board when the Senate was not in recess. He waived the work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform law. Earlier this year, the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration “set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.” His administration has ignored repeated congressional subpoenas, while his attorney general was found in contempt of Congress.
Obama perhaps calculated that he could get away with this lawlessness because of his uniqueness. The Constitution provides a remedy for lawless executives — but while Obama has arguably committed acts that merit impeachment, he knows that his status as the first black president gives him immunity. Impeachment would tear the country apart.
The courts have thwarted some of Obama’s power grabs. The Supreme Court has rebuked him several times. The NLRB appointments were reversed, and the immigration waiver has been judicially stayed for now. But much damage remains.
Obama’s legacy is a profound weakening of respect for law and tradition in this country. That Democrats are fine with this isn’t a huge surprise. They’ve long demonstrated that they are ends-justify-the-means types. Since the era of Woodrow Wilson, they’ve decided that if they cannot get their preferred policies through legislatures, they’re happy to see them imposed by courts — and if not by courts, then by executive fiat. They conveniently uphold a “living” Constitution — which is pretty much no Constitution at all but just the raw exercise of power by those in robes.
Conservatives and Republicans, by contrast, have traditionally stood for the rule of law — with all of its frustrations and inefficiencies. Respect for the rule of law is more precious than any given policy outcome. If we are not, as John Adams said, a “government of laws and not of men,” we will soon drift into the kind of despotism that characterizes nations without a strong legal tradition. Putinism is destroying what is best in Russia. Peronism devastated Argentina. Franco crushed liberty in Spain for half a century. The Castro brothers have imposed their tyranny on Cuba for longer than that. The list of countries that succumbed to Caesarism is very, very long.
The appeal of Trump falls into this category. Though one might suppose that his borderline pathological narcissism, his arrested emotional development and his nearly incoherent ramblings would exclude him from consideration for county clerk, he sits atop the GOP field. The message from a segment of the Republican Party is: “Okay, we’re an autocracy now. So let’s have this guy govern by fiat.”
Unless the rest of the Republican Party makes a different case — namely that the answer to Obamaism is a return to law — it may be game over for self-government in the world’s oldest democracy.
Published in General
We are constantly told — by Democrats and Republicans alike — that nothing can be done. That he costs of action exceed the costs of inaction. That our knotty problems are highly complicated, to be unraveled (if possible) by careful, thoughtful experts.
Trump promises to cut the Gordian knot.
I think this is a lot of Trump’s appeal. Most people realize the government no longer serves the people. It serves itself. A Trump presidency would reveal if the patients (bureaucrats) really are running the asylum, and if it is even possible for our political mechanisms to affect change short of revolution.
Hey GOP, don’t tell us what you can’t do.
I don’t agree that Republicans say that. Democrats believe in rule by experts, not Republicans, for the most part. But the idea that Donald Trump will “cut the Gordian knot” is an illusion. He’s a creep, a vulgarian, and a narcissist. He spells doom for all our hopes to save this country.
The same was said of Andrew Jackson.
I’m not sure that analogy goes where you want it to.
We forget, the Gordian knot was holding a wagon-tongue to the wagon itself. Alexander fully intended to make the wheels come off Asia. I’m not sure we want the same for America, yet.
And on an unrelated note, we really should fix the bug where every embedded youtube video that ends up in quoted text autoplays.
I agree that Trump’s promise is an empty one, but Republicans are telegraphing defeatism all day long — on every issue of substance.
Obamacare repeal? Well, now that it’s in place, people depend on it, and they’d get hurt if there were disruption. And we can’t use reconciliation after all.
Illegal immigration? It’s not realistic to patrol the borders, track visa overstays, or enforce the law.
Obama’s executive overreach? Any response would be political suicide. Can’t sue. Can’t block nominees. Can’t shut down the government. Can’t impeach.
I’m a little pressed for time, so I’m not going to hunt down the links right now. But it’s not hard to find influential mainstream Republicans expressing this too-complex-ism. Isolated Republican voices do offer solutions, but for the most part, party leaders tut-tut about how regrettable it is that their hands are tied.
That’s precisely where I was going with that allusion. I’m pretty sure the story of Alexander is apocryphal, intended to illustrate all sorts of things about him — his disdain for custom, tradition, and convention, his readiness to place ends above means, his readiness to destroy whatever stands in the way of his goals.
I appreciate that this is a learned audience. But let’s step back a minute. We’re invoking Alexander and Caesar. Have we skipped right over the Scottish Enlightenment? The American founding? Julius Caesar was a king — in all but name. In Gaul, he killed and enslaved, by his own estimate, more than 1 million people. He was too much of a despot for his own brutal age! Admittedly, what followed was a monarchy, not a return to the Republic. But let’s keep our bearings here. We still believe in liberty, self-government, and a republican form of government, do we not? We’re not looking for a man on a white horse, are we? Let’s not make Franklin, Adams, Washington, et al roll over in their graves.
I agree with this 100%. I get why Trump is popular. Rather than attacking those that are responsible like Boehner or McConnell or Priebus, we attack those that like Trump’s message. He’s standing up for the peons when nobody has since Palin. He’s not my first, second, or third choice, but darn, he actually acts like he wants our votes. He’s standing up against the consultants, the media, and every other group we despise.
As a middle-class peon, I’m just tired. I’m tired of Senate and House rules being excuses for not standing up to Obama. I’m tired of hearing wishy-washy answers from our supposed deep bench when it comes to issues (with the exception of a few).
Perot elected Bill Clinton. Trump will elect Hillary Clinton. Or, God help us, Joe Biden.
An excellent point.
The difference between the Trump haters and the Trump non-haters:
Trump haters: “We keep pointing out all of Trump’s faults, and you keep supporting him. What’s wrong with you? Are you crazy?!”
Trump non-haters: “We keep pointing out all of problems with our immigration system, but you never seem to listen to us. What’s wrong with you? Are you crazy?!”
A similar parallel seems to exist between those who wish to improve the Constitution by an Article V convention of the states. Is that idea crazy or is it crazy not to consider the idea?
Groan. First, Larry Kudlow suggested a comment by Trump was instrumental to the recent world wide sell off in the markets. Now Ms. Charen has elevated Trump to Caesar.
Trump is the most interesting man alive.
Sometimes I enjoy controlling world events with just a thought.
Often I’m anointed caesar without even asking.
I crush the GOP Establishment with just a flick of my little finger.
…
…
I don’t always crush the GOP Establishment, but when I do …
Donald Trump, the world’s most interesting man.
How did that Ross Perot candidacy work out for us?
Then that makes the right no better than the left and America is truly doomed.
I love watching the establishment panic.
Not a vote has been cast, yet Trump is seemingly poised to march on Washington like George McClellan threatened long ago. The fear is palpable. I expect soon we’ll all be told Trump is actually a lizard from outer space in disguise, which renders him not a natural born citizen and thus ineligible to be president.
Meanwhile, back in the actual United States, the Donald is busy campaigning like any other politician, even giving children rides in his helicopter. (Wait- am I supposed to hate him because he’s rich? Or celebrate his success? I’m not sure any more.)
In any case it seems to me that perhaps complaining about “Caesarism” in a country with no fewer than three portraits of conquering generals on its currency is a mite overblown.
I think the country could stand for more conquering and less defeat, but that’s just my opinion.
I suspect if you pushed on the point, you’d find you have it backwards. America is doomed. Therefore there is no point or reason for the right to act better than the left. In fact, great reason to do the opposite -to make sure that we are as underhanded as possible to ensure the victory of our own dictator.
Happy republics where everyone follows the rules don’t have their bouts with Caesarism.
Mona, how stupid are we supposed to be?
With Dems in the minority and Bush in the White House it was: “Well, wait until this next Mid-term, and then we will fight”.
Then it was “Wait until McCain wins, then we will fight”
Then it was “Wait until we win the House, then we will fight”
Then it was “Wait unitl we get both houses, then we will fight”
Now it is “Wait until we have the POTUS and both houses, then we will fight”
The GOP *had* all three, and we got:
Now, when exactly, is the GOP going to do something conservative?
I am not for Trump, but the GOP, its leaders, and most the chattering class, tells how we cannot do anything. Meanwhile, when the Dems have one house, or just the POTUS, they get everything they want.
Liberals do nothing but win, and we do nothing but lose.
The Republic was long dead when Caesar took over. It was dead when Sulla took it over. Sulla’s crime was trying to revive a dead body. Caesar turned it into something else.
Caesar was a hero to the people of Rome. He was popular. It was the elite that hated him, and killed him.
I don’t like Trump, but this is what you get when you decide “I know better”.
Someone else already said it: It turns out that Republicans really don’t want to be lead by the first 500 names in the phonebook.
At least Obama is smart, Trump is just a “thug”.
Yep, running up an $18 trillion national debt is the height of brilliance.
This picture is somewhat ironic. Trump is a close friend of Hillary Clinton which therefore disqualifies him from the role he has. Megyn Kelly is the reason that Jeb Bush suffered his first major blow politically in this season when she asked him about how he would respond to the accusation that the Iraq War was based on lies from the left and he waffled.
Likewise she asked Donald Trump how he would respond to the same leftist attacks about sexism from Clinton. Instead of answering the question and being vetted, like a true candidate that desires the office and to do right with it, he attacked her (repeteadly on twitter even, after several weeks too, thus showing how deep those wounds go) and didn’t answer. He could have simply said that most of those were to Rosey O’Donell and about her stupid opinions and that he simply overreacted in those other cases or that even if he made those few comments that it didn’t reflect his overall view of women. But no, he played it like an alinskyite and attacked the reporter personally.
If you want a comparison of Trump to a Roman figure (a real one that existed over 2,000 years ago) then it would be Licinius Crassus. An incredibly wealthy Roman Patrician that was apart of the first triumvirate. He died getting his wish to lead roman troops in war against the Partians at Carrhae
I would agree partially with you on the issue of Julius Caesar. He was raised in a time of Dictatorship under Sulla, even having to leave Rome because his Patrician Family was an enemy of the state. However, the Senate and magistrates did not die out with Caesar. It passed on into the Principate and at least till 650 AD (they installed Heracleus as Emperor against Phokas in the 8th Roman-Sassanid War). Even when Augustus was Emperor Roman Consuls could change law (an example is with tax law on marriages in the Lex Augustus). The Republic doesn’t die over night. Wars are not won over night. The physical might die but the idea lives on.
That same Republican Congress with Bush that you chastised was the first to get us a surplus in 70 years. Less spending and paying off the debt does lend towards our conservative principles, the slight deregulation tweeks were the first baby steps towards the conservative direction (just as the progressives first started out). We also had that Iraq War which wasn’t inherently bad. As a matter of fact by 2007 our spending towards the war had dwindled significantly until the Democrats took over. That Republican Congress and even our lukewarm George Bush was a step in the right direction.
Patience is a virtue and while I would like the same end result as other conservatives we must also recognize the parameters of our existence and the culture.
Mike you sound like Obama, really.
And debt will go down after this great wall.
All our guys do is slow the flow, not stop it or turn it back, and we are constantly told, “later”.
When’s later?
Well Mona, thanks for opening my eyes.
I’ve been a Ricochet member since its founding referred by Mark Steyn. I’m a Margaret Thatcher member and in last two years have given 10 gift memberships as Christmas presents.
I should have seen this coming, Nordlinger made a crude reference to McCarthyism several months ago (he should read American Betrayal by Diana West). Then in this post you get into the name calling so I guess could be construed to be a “creep and vulgarian”.
As of today I will be unsubscribing to your podcasts, most were pretty good but I now see your true colors. You may have driven the final stake into my Ricochet membership unless I have a change of heart.
In closing I’d like to leave you with “A New Anthem for “Crazies”, “WhackoBirds”, “Hobbits” & “Vulgarians” – both you and Jay should enjoy.
kmtanner; I’ve been interested to read many of your comments but you are so far off base on this remark, I believe you have left the ballpark altogether.
Whoa, Mona. This is a small point in your article but a large point in the history of the twentieth century: Franco hardly “crushed liberty” in Spain–at least not in the way your bald statement might seem to imply. Given the chaotic, violent politics that Spain had endured for more than a century, which culminated, of course, in a civil war in which tens of thousands of Spaniards died, Franco shut down or eliminated politics. Yet in virtually every other sphere of life Spaniards retained their liberty, able to travel freely, to study what they wanted, to work as they chose. Pinochet would do the same in Chile. None of this commends either man to us Americans, who of course value political liberty as much as any other form of freedom. Yet as Jeanne Kirkpatrick noted in her famous article, there was a basic, a radical difference between such regimes, which she rightly called “authoritarian,” and communist regimes, which, claiming the right to dictate every aspect of the lives of their subjects, down to their deepest beliefs, really did crush liberty.
Good point, Peter. It is in line with the fact that the people of Rome were happy for a Dictator. There were rival political gangs in the streets. The Eternal City was not safe for its Citizens. Caesar ended that with troops and the people cheered.