Daily Scold: Political messianism

Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt and George Washington are presidents which are not often compared except in one key way: the devotion that certain groups and constituencies give these leaders is worthy of messianism. The problem with this should be apparent immediately. These men are not messiahs. They are mere mortals, and while their ideas and ideals are consequential, they themselves are fallible men, and their ideas and ideals can and often are fallible. Perhaps this post was inspired by the recent crowds gathered to hear Barack Obama speak or that ridiculous "Yes We Can" anthem sung by some of the Hollywood crowd. Or perhaps it was the plethora of books dedicated to past presidents such as Reagan and Roosevelt. Or maybe it's the fury directed towards Presidents Bush and Clinton because they failed to achieve the same greatness as past presidents that is guiding this post. Take a deep breath folks, we aren't voting for Jesus, we're voting for the same kind of folks who would wash their hands of his blood.

I attribute this religious fervor to a view of government and the presidency which is not only wrong-headed but also unconstitutional and an affront to a limited government which the Framers intended. James Madison writes in Federalist No. 48 that "the executive magistracy is carefully limited, both in the extent and the duration of its powers." According to Article 2 of the Constitution, the president can ask Congress to declare war, appoint his cabinet and the judiciary, and ratify treaties (if two-thirds of the Senate approves). This is a very limited position. The true power lies in Congress for passing laws and the Supreme Court for verifying their constitutionality.

However, in the era of an ever-encroaching government, we have seen the presidency elevated from a limited position to one of expansive powers. The legislative branch has seen a marked decline its ability to check the power of the executive and in many cases simply rubber-stamps the dictates of the presidency. This was not how the Framers of the Constitution intended the federal government to function.

The rise of progressivism and the need for the government to do something to combat the evils of our time made way for what some have termed the "imperial presidency." President Teddy Roosevelt may be the instigator of this. Reason magazine noted, "given the American public’s congenital resistance to centralized rule, a sustained atmosphere of crisis would be necessary to sell the expansion of White House power. Two world wars and one Great Depression did the trick nicely. T.R.’s activist, celebrity presidency heralded the coming of a new sort of chief executive, one who would evermore be the center of national attention, the motive force behind American government." Moreover, Teddy's cousin Franklin continued this unconstitutional exploitation of the presidency by trying to pack the Supreme Court, seizing the banks and issuing executive orders which exceeded the constitutional limitations placed on his office.

This has had a deeply psychological affect on the American electorate. A fair number of people would rather cut out the middle man (Congress) and go directly to the president. This molds much of our collective thinking towards viewing the man as messiah. Think of the terms that Obama and his supporters use as a rallying cry: faith, unity, hope, change. These aren't political terms, they are spiritual ones which have been supercharged to fit a view of the presidency as a euphoric religious experience. One cringes when Michelle Obama, wife of the aforementioned messiah, says, "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed." This is a view of a presidential candidate which is deeply unsettling.

The danger lies most prominently in the inability of the electorate to take their political messiah to task for the abuse of power. The unity which is most prized by those seeking to turn the office of the presidency into a religious position is the most dangerous aspect of all. Simply put, unity is not a virtue as much as a vice to limited government. Much crime has been committed in the name of unity. Jonah Goldberg writes, "The only value of unity is strength, strength in numbers — and, again, that is a fascist value. That’s the symbolism of the fasces, the bundle of sticks that in combination are invincible. Rape gangs and lynch mobs? Unified. The mafia? Unified. The SS [Ed. the Schutzstaffel, a Nazi paramilitary force]? They had unity coming out the yinyang. Meanwhile, Socrates, Jesus, Thomas More, and an endless line of nameless souls were dispatched from this earth in the name of "unity."

I think that the role model for the president should be none other than Calvin Coolidge. Yes, I am referring to that president. The one who said, "After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world," and who said, "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business."

We need more presidents who mind their own business and don't expand their own powers at the expense of the Constitution. We need leaders who don't rise out of the masses promising them their elevation along with theirs. We need not presidents who reflect the post-modern will of the masses. We need presidents to reflect the principles of America's founding document. Coolidge rejected the idea of a political messiah when he said, "We draw our presidents from the people. It is a wholesome thing for them to return to the people. I came from them. I wish to be one of them again."