Beltway Begins Chant for Congressional Subservience to the Dear Leader

by: David Sirota

Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 19:49


Well, it's the New Year and a new political season, so why should we expect anything other than raw, unadulterated presidentialism from the Beltway? That's what this Wall Street Journal story is all about - creating the belief that subservience and worship of the president - ie. presidentialism - is the Responsible and Serious Course of Action for a U.S. Congress that is constitutionally obligated to act as an equal branch of government:  
David Sirota :: Beltway Begins Chant for Congressional Subservience to the Dear Leader
WASHINGTON - Franklin D. Roosevelt launched the New Deal, and transformed American government, in just 100 days after his inauguration in part because the Congress of 1933 was one of the most subservient in American history. It's not clear Barack Obama will be as lucky...

"The house is burning down, and the president of the United States says this is the way to put out the fire," [Minority Leader Bertrand] Snell said of FDR, as recounted in Anthony Badger's FDR: The First Hundred Days. "And to me at this time, there is only one answer to that question, and that is to give the president what he demands and says is necessary to meet the situation."

Some question whether the current Democratic leaders have the temperament to keep their egos in check as their counterparts did 75 years ago.

"They have to stay behind the scenes. That's going to be hard; there are some big egos in Washington," Mr. Lichtman said. "Never underestimate the arrogance of power in Washington. The members of Congress are going to have to put aside their ego in implementing Obama's program." (emphasis added)

Look, I'm glad the Republicans rolled over during the New Deal, but I also don't think it's good for anything when Congress as an institution rolls over. The strength of our democracy is based on three functioning - EQUAL - branches of government. And frankly, watching Obama start to push conservative corporate tax cuts that the Democratic House already rejected should show progressives why we should want an emboldened Congress - not a subservient one. I say that especially considering the fact that many of the congressional chairpeople are among the most progressive lawmakers.

Lichtman uses polite Beltway doublespeak - "put aside their egos" - to advocate the most impolite of ideologies in a democracy: the kind that says our elected representatives ought to just bow down to the Dear Leader.

This is standard fare from the power-worshiping class in Washington - but we've already learned the dangers of a subservient Congress during George W. Bush's term. Though Obama is no Bush - not even close - the lessons are the same. When the legislative branch of government - the branch closest to the people - behaves like a rubber stamp, our country is worse off for it.


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
mostly agree (4.00 / 1)
Although I prefer action to inaction, and hope that Democratic congressional leaders don't led the GOP play obstructionist games the way they did the last two years and during 93-94.

Americans didn't elect 59 Democrats to the Senate only to see the GOP filibuster everything.

And yes, of course Congress should act as a co-equal branch of government, but that isn't incompatible with passing bills that will actually be signed.


I'm sure (4.00 / 2)
Obama will get much of what he wants, if what he wants are mostly Republican-generated policies. That gets us where on the change we need now road?

Visit my blog, Democracy for New Mexico.

[ Parent ]
emboldened Congress (0.00 / 0)
Republicans will be emboldened and Democrats will roll over for a tummy scratch from them.  It never changes and only continues to reinforce "Democrats are weak".  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
heh (0.00 / 0)
the kind that says our elected representatives ought to just bow down to the Dear Leader.

Sounds good, I don't trust congress to get anything done properly except spend money on their pet  projects or obstruct or give in to lobbyists. Plus it is not like they have any choice or political capital anyways, people despise them and their approval rating is lower (or similar in case of dems in congress) than bush.


And where there is opposition to presidential power... (0.00 / 0)
It comes from hacks like John Bolton and John Yoo, who are very clearly arguing in bad faith, since they did they argued the exact opposite when Bush was President. There needs to be a good progressive case made, independent of personalities, that Congress should stand up to the President when the president is wrong.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

Well, they're far-right Repubs who are not in congress (0.00 / 0)
So their concerns should matter to Obama about as much as Rush Assboil's. Nor am I that concerned about what the GOP minority thinks. But there has to be some constructive tension between Dems and Obama if this is to work. They need his leadership and initiative and power to cut through deadlock, and he needs their expertise and experience and resistance to his less worthy ideas. He can't do it on his own, despite his fanbots' Obamaman fantasies.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I agree to some degree... (0.00 / 0)
...but isn't there room, post-election, to give Obama the chance to implement some of his agenda?  First Hundred Days and all?

Realy (4.00 / 1)
I suppose David will only be happy if Obama gets nothing done.  Sometimes I wonder which side he's on?  

[ Parent ]
That's a lie and you know it (0.00 / 0)
Stop putting up straw men. Or do you not believe in the democratic process? Oh, wait, this time it's "different", so suspend the rules! Hmm, where have I heard that one before...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
That isn't a lie, it's stupid. (4.00 / 1)
Lies are believable.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Okay, I misread this post's title in an "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" kind of way (0.00 / 0)
and I thought, "What does Menachem Begin have to do with Congressional subservience to the President?"

David, where the hell are you coming from? (2.00 / 4)
NOW you want Congress to grow a spine?  The Democratic Congress, in order to frustrate the Democratic President?  Oh, I'm sorry -- the 'Dear Leader'?  WTF are you talking about?  You WANT invertebrates like Reid to suddenly worry about Presidential power?  You WANT Democrats to stand tall and fight Obama's program should they see fit, because they have proven to be so progressive and partisan?  For instanmce, do you applaud Feinstein and Jello Jay Rockefeller, standing their ground on Obama's CIA choice? What the hell is your problem?  Or are you just a shit disturber?  And you know what?  Kindly cram your 'Dear Leader' bullshit because it's really insulting and stupid.

David is coming from (4.00 / 1)
the point where he wants the Democratic congress to fight Obama on the things he (David) doesn't agree with. He sure as hell doesn't want them to fight Obama on the 'real' progressive issues.

And, about 'Dear Leader' - I agree. I'd like to add sophomoric to "insulting and stupid."


[ Parent ]
Your concern it noted... (0.00 / 0)
Stay away from matches and terriers named Toto.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
So far, the only kinds of resistance that we've seen from congress (4.00 / 1)
is either from far-right obstructionist Repubs like Boehner and Cantor, whose sole purpose in life is to make life as unpleasant as possible for the overwhelming majority of human beings alive, or from corporate jello-spined "Dems" like DiFi and JT&T, who felt slighted at Obama's choice of Panetta to head CIA and felt the need to air their displeasure in public.

They have spoken. We are quaking in our metaphorical boots. Or not. Now we need to see some serious, substantive resistance, where it's called for. From both sides. Obama needs it.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


what's wrong with you david? (0.00 / 0)
For this congress, assertion of congressional rights is going to take the form of DiFi explaining we need continuity at the CIA so her complicity in illegal spying won't get exposed and Harry Reid "compromising" with Pukes.

We don't need that shit.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search