Different fella
Tom Nichols in The Atlantic on the contrasts between George Washington and the wannabe dictator:
Donald Trump and his authoritarian political movement represent an existential threat to every ideal that Washington cherished and encouraged in his new nation. They are the incarnation of Washington’s misgivings about populism, partisanship, and the “spirit of revenge” that Washington lamented as the animating force of party politics. Washington feared that, amid constant political warfare, some citizens would come to “seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual,” and that eventually a demagogue would exploit that sentiment.
…
Most American presidents have had some sort of military experience. A few, like Washington, were genuine war heroes. All of them understood that military obedience to the rule of law and to responsible civilian authority is fundamental to the survival of democracy. Again, all of them but one.
During his term as president, Trump expected the military to be loyal—but only to him. He did not understand (or care) that members of the military swear an oath to the Constitution, and that they are servants of the nation, not of one man in one office. Trump viewed the military like a small child surveying a shelf of toy soldiers, referring to “my generals” and ordering up parades for his own enjoyment and to emphasize his personal control.
Trump was more than willing to turn the American military against its own people. In 2020, for instance, he wanted the military to attack protesters near the White House. “Beat the fuck out of them,” the president told the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley. “Just shoot them.” Both Milley and Defense Secretary Mark Esper (a former military officer himself) talked their boss out of opening fire on American citizens.
Senior officers during Trump’s term chose loyalty to the Constitution over loyalty to Donald Trump and remained true to Washington’s legacy. Such principles baffle Trump—all principles seem to baffle Trump, and he especially does not understand patriotism or self-sacrifice. He is, after all, the commander in chief who stood in Arlington National Cemetery, looked around at the honored dead in one of the country’s most sacred places, and said: “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”
Not someone we should put in a position to do it again.
He understands patriotism as a tool he can use to whip up fervor in his supporters. Patriotism, in his worldview, is loyalty to him. Royal Trump. (Why is it when we talk about him, it so often sounds like we are ready to play bridge?)
Patriotism has long been a tool in the hands of the unscrupulous, but he took it to a new height. I’m not a friend of patriotism, at least as it is usually practiced, but I can see loving the country you live in. To me, though, true patriotism would be working toward fulfillment of the grand ideas it pretends to be founded on.
And yet that is exactly what Washington and his compatriots did. They created a President with almost limitless power. They created the electoral college to ensure that only the right type of person could become president.
When my American friends tell me that “America isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic” I tell them I already knew it wasn’t a democracy just by looking at the electoral college’s existence.
I read this morning that Walz wants to abolish it. Silly, silly man. This is handing more ammunition to the GOP. Keep your mouth shut Tim, win the election, and then get to work on democratizing the USA.
I’m sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can’t stand the scene.
And I’m neither left or right
I’m just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I’m stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I’m junk but I’m still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Leonard Cohen, “Democracy”.
Rev, I disagree that that is what Washington and the Founders did. As originally set up the president was a very constrained and actually quite weak role. It was very much focussed on foreign relations.
The current emperor like status has come about from periods with a weak and sometimes frightened Congress coupled with strong Presidents.
Congress has sometimes thrown its power to the President, other times a strong President has usurped that power because Congress has been (and is increasingly) moribund. In theory Congress could seize back most if not all that power – if it had the will to do so. yeah, right. More recently of course an extraordinarily partisan SCOTUS, now completely unmoored, has effectively claimed the president is answerable to no-one, except any Federal court judge who wants to block student loan forgiveness apparently. Even GOP judges have their limits after all.
Rev, I agree with Rob. The presidency as originally conceived had limited powers…and no money. Once Congress decided to give the president a discretionary fund, that helped ambitious presidents engage in projects that increased presidential power. For the most part, Congress has allowed them to do it, preferring not to flex their muscles.
Too many of the public contribute to this by their view of the president as able to do almost anything. Economy tanks? Blame the president. Economy strong? Praise the president. War – peace – health – sickness – everything – people think it is the president that is in charge. In reality, most of the things people expect from the president are the jurisdiction of Congress or of state legislatures.
Yeah, the electoral college – it’s a mess. But the president was not given the powers they currently claim. For that matter, it is easily argued that the Supreme Court wasn’t given the powers they currently claim.