Trump will diminish the office IMO and make people realize the folly of putting so much power in the hands of the executive.
If we're unhappy with the presidency we've got . . . we have ourselves to blame.
THe office as we know it is largely the creature of public demands. And like the
transformed presidential role it reflects, the exultant rhetoric of the modern
presidency is as much curse as blessing. It raises expectations for the office---
expectations that were extraordinarily high to begin with. A man who trumpets
his ability to protect Americans from economic dislocation, to shield them from
physical harm and moral decay, and to lead them to national glory---such a man
is bound to disappoint. Yet, having promised much, he'll seek the power to
deliver on his promises . . .
George W. Bush returned to the ranch in January 2009, to the relief of an ever-
increasing majority of Americans. But replacing him will not solve the problem
of presidential power. The pressure for centralisation will remain, enhanced by
the atmosphere of permanent emergency accompanying the War on Terror. And
future presidents will respond to that pressure by enhancing their power,
becoming loved and admired, then hated and feared, in the binge-and-purge
cycle that characterises the American public's dysfunctional relationship with
the presidency.
In an October 2000 "exit interview" with The New Yorker
, Bill Clinton
allowed that his tenure may have served to "demystify the job" of the presiden-
cy, and that, as far as he was concerned, wasn't "such a bad thing." "Demys-
tfying the job" was a wonderful euphemism for alternately amusing and
dismaying Americans with the image of a president with his trousers around
his ankles. But a genuine demystification of the presidency is sorely needed.
A political culture often condemned for its cynicism isn't nearly cynical enough
when it comes to the nation's highest office. That office cannot deliver what
it promises; and in the promising it sets the stage for further concentration
of power . . .
[A] presidency of limited powers and modest goals was what the Framers
gave us in 1787. It was the presidency we enjoyed for most of the first
century under the Constitution. And it is worth fighting to restore.---Gene Healy, from
The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous
Devotion to Executive Power.
Partisan fervor and cults of personality are the enemies of sober judgment. It’s
skepticism, not passion, we need when evaluating potential presidents, lest we get
swept away and wind up ashamed of ourselves in the morning. Nobel laureate James
Buchanan, who helped found the “public choice” school of political economy, termed
his approach “politics without romance.” In this era of limits, we need a presidency
without romance.
The president cannot be the “God of All Things”—he cannot save the national soul,
and he should not be entrusted with the responsibility to try. In the trying, we’ve
made the presidency far too powerful, and we’ve also made it an impossible job. By
demanding what we cannot have, we’ve ensured that we’ll get what we cannot stand.
The office the Framers referred to as our “chief magistrate” was never designed to bear
the weight of all our hopes and dreams.
Recognizing that is the furthest thing from “cynicism.” It’s the recovery of timeless
wisdom: “Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.”
“America’s soul” doesn’t need saving, but our constitutional order is an unholy mess.
Redemption can only begin when we turn away from false idols.---Healy, from
False Idol: Barack Obama and the Continuing Cult of the
Presidency.People didn't realise the folly with Droopy-Drawers Clinton, President Lips II,
and His Excellency Al-Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD,
RIP, LSMFT, Would-Have-Been Life President of the Republic Formerly Known
as the United States, men under whom the metastasis of the imperial presidency
and predator government continued apace, with no letup and a perpetual
air about them that, whatever their individual differences, they were the nation's
father/commanders. What extremely few of Donaldus Minimus's critics, and
perhaps fewer of his supporters, deign to allow for discussion is the fact that
he's likelier to abet that metastasis even further than he is to arrest it, regardless
of how pronounced a crude, vulgar philistine he shows himself to be.
