Election of a King

Ever since Ron Paul (predictably) failed to secure the Republican nomination for president, I have found myself uninspired by the current field of candidates. I can't even find a third-party candidate that makes me feel that I can hold my nose and cast my ballot. I think this is because I find myself no longer willing to vote for the most-qualified candidate; instead I find myself asking if any of the candidates is truly qualified to serve in the Constitutional role of chief executive and check on the power of Congress. It seems that we, as a country, have forgotten what the President does. Instead, we treat him as an elected king, much like the Romans would appoint term-limited dictators.

Nowhere does this disconnect become more apparent than in our current presidential election. Both McCain and Obama talk about all of the things they plan to do should they be elected, yet the vast majority of it is well outside of the scope of what the chief executive should be doing. Sadly, those who question their authority and ability to do as they claim are few and far between, often dismissed as kooks.

Even worse is that when there is an egregious abuse of the power given to the executive, we fail to correct it. Instead of recognizing that we must reign in the presidency, they instead insist that the problem will be different with a different elected king. Their elected king. In the process, the new king is emboldened by the lack of oversight to stretch the role even further and usurp even more power. The process keeps on repeating itself, racing on a downward spiral towards eventual tyranny.

The circus that is the Democratic National Convention only underscores this irrational tendency to almost deify our preferred choice in President. The level of rock-star glitz and charisma surrounding Obama terrifyingly distracts from what is, by most accounts, a hard-left core set of policies, many of which are grossly beyond the scope of what the federal government has been intended to do. The supporters do not see a problem with this, yet many of them will gleefully point out how much they disdain policies such as No Child Left Behind and the expansion of MediCare prescription drug coverage, an irony I simply do not comprehend. They falsely believe their king will use that expanded authority wisely, yet get infuriated when an opposing king uses this same granted power to do what they vociferously oppose.

The more I consider this disconnect between our original republic and the current oligarchy, the more disgusted I get. We did this to ourselves, yet we are collectively too stupid to recognize it or believe that we are somehow responsible for it. (No drop believes it is to blame for the flood, right?) We'll shout "throw the bum(s) out" every four years, yet we vote the old bums back with more predictability than the swallows returning to Capistrano. The names may have changed, but the power-hungry motives are still the same.

I have little faith that this concentration of executive power will end anytime soon. We have caved into our desire to be ruled and forgotten why this nation exists in the first place. May future generations have mercy on us for squandering their birthright to good government.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Election of a King

  1. Bill says:

    Hear Hear! Jesse for president…

    We too believe when Ron Paul failed to secure the nomination, it was essentially a lost cause. Neither myself, nor my wife really feels like showing up for this election.

    But yes, being called a “kook” is par for the course when one deigns to question anything. You’re not understanding, you need to be spoon-fed your information see? Just sit back quietly and watch tv.. shhh shhh

    Great post.

  2. Kristi says:

    Wait. Did you just call me stupid?

  3. Kristi says:

    Seriously, good post. It’s scary how much “we the people” are willing to just hand over our power to the richest, best looking politician who sends a flyer to our mailbox.

  4. Reach Upward says:

    Thank you for writing what I have been thinking for some time.

    The legislative and judicial branches are in on the whole thing as well. The king’s opponents in the legislature are afraid to push too hard for restricting his royal powers because they have a shot at promoting one of their bunch to the throne every four years, and they wouldn’t want his powers restricted.

    While we clamor for ‘originalist’ judges, we actually fill the ranks with lawyers that see no logical limit to the scope of government. The executive and the legislature use the judiciary as a sort of good cop/bad cop routine. They put and keep the judges in power. They loudly complain about their wacky rulings, but privately smile and let them go on their merry way.

    And yes, We The People continually clamor for more, more, more! We also seemingly see no logical limit to the scope of government. Give us a new king!

  5. Jason says:

    I’m jaded by the political process. In 2004, I voted, but I wasn’t happy about it. Same with this year.

    One day I’d like to see a qualified candidate.

  6. We need to elect (at least vote for) someone who would not consider themselves a king if they were president–for example, someone who, like Ron Paul clearly stated several times that he would not do, would not go to war unless he had a clear declaration of war from congress.

    After scratching McCain and Obama from my list of the thus qualified, I don’t have quite the warm and fuzzy about Bob Barr. But I do have that feeling that Chuck Baldwin would act as Ron Paul would. So that’s who I’m voting for.

    And the good thing?–I don’t even have to plug my nose to do it!! No lesser of evils for me on this one!

  7. Jesse says:

    As someone who has been involved in Constitution Party politics, I’d have a hard time voting for Chuck Baldwin. His intra-party power grabbing and manipulation have not sat well with me.

  8. Bill Fox says:

    Jesse, I just got through seeing the HBO series on Madison. It seemed factual. What the series impressed me with is that nothing has really changed as far as some not being pleased where the country is headed. Now it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that we’ve become more socialized, taxed, and regulated,but some people felt the same way about Washington. Madison, & Jefferson, as you do about your choices today. Although McCain is not my idea of anything close to a perfect candidate, I believe you will be more tramatized (sp?) under an Obama presidency than a McCain presidency (financial and social issues) and that is the only thing that can be considered in the supporting the lesser of 2 evils approach. I guess in Utah and California it really doesn’t matter who we vote for or against for president as those electoral votes are already safely counted. I would have felt better if McCain had picked Meg Whitman or Carly Forino but vote for him over Obama I must

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.