The Crazy Idea that the President Is ‘Leader’ of the Country
In reality, that guy would not only be fired, he’d be sued. And, with a name like Barack Obama, probably deported. But because it isn’t reality — it’s government — we’re somehow considering keeping him. Of course, would Mitt Romney understand his job as president any better? He has his plan to fix America, and if 90% of the plan isn’t “stay out of everyone’s way,” he’s overthinking it.
That’s why the State of the Union address is a great idea: It’s a yearly update from the president on what he’s doing. And the standard should be that if he’s doing a good job, that’s the only time of the year we see him. If the president is constantly on TV, then obviously he’s being a huge screw-up who needs too much supervision. Can him.
And we need to get out of the president’s head the silly notion that he’s our leader. If America wanted a leader, we would have a special set of feats a person would have to accomplish in order to become that leader, like create a business, win a nacho-eating contest, and punch out a grizzly bear — things that display Americanness. What we would not do is elect a leader through our usual democratic system, which does nothing but produce mediocre bureaucrats. Really, why would anyone think we should be inspired by those people? That’s like being motivated by a slime mold.
But America doesn’t need a leader, because we’re a bunch of free people in charge of our own lives who can handle our own problems, as long as we have a president who knows enough to keep the government out of our way. We can create our own businesses and make our own jobs. We can drill for oil and lower gas prices. We can head to the Walgreens at any major intersection and buy our own birth control.
And if we really want to be inspired, we can buy a set of Tony Robbins tapes.
This has been bothering me for a long time and I can’t help but think that the “leader” narrative was set by the left and supported by constant rhetoric the same.
Europeans think this way … NOT Americans; and that troubled me even more. The idea that one man is the “leader” of the free world and not just a representative is scary; sure America is the leader of the free world, its people; us. The entire Obama aura began with an over-the-top emphasis on Obama’s deity, why he was able to slow the rise of the oceans don’t ya know! Pure sophistry has been accompanying Obama and deceiving many. However, Obama has officially screwed the pooch with Benghazi and there’s more to come. Romney at least said recently, “vote for America” and that’s a little more palatable for me … “In God We Trust”.
It was! By Wilson himself, the Progrwssive slime ball extraordinaire! Read I am the Change by Charles R. Kessler.
Excellent post! I’ve been telling people for a long time, we need to stop referring to politician as our leaders, they are our servants. I wouldn’t follow more than about three people in Washington DC to a Fourth of July picnic with free beer.
IMAO, I coulda explained it to you a long time ago if you hadn’t banned me from your site.
Who works for whom?
The President works for Americans! Hello!
Americans don’t work for the president.
As far back as I can trace it, “leader” rhetoric about the president began with Theodore Roosevelt. Teddy was the first president who put most of his efforts into attempting to steer the country according to his preferences. Probably his powerfully popularized military exploits and his general demeanor of aggressiveness were the most important factors.
After Teddy, we had a single “non-leader” president in William Howard Taft, a far more modest and Constitutionally faithful man. Immediately thereafter, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt picked up the “leader” notion and ran with it. Note that both were wartime presidents — willfully so — and both intended a major transformation of the country.
Ever since FDR, the “leader” notion has stuck: the president is now expected to define a national agenda and prosecute it, rather than his original Constitutional job description as our chief international negotiator and domestic law enforcer. It says quite a lot about the changes in the American psyche that we’ve accepted this transformation with so little resistance.
You forgot Calvin Coolidge. He got out of the way, big time, and didn’t try to steer the US to any agenda. He was the last one.
After him came Hoover, another ‘progressive’ Republican. Sheesh.
“Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business”
Coolidge
The idea of the President as just “head janitor” with most power held by the people, ended when America became a true world power under Theodore Roosevelt, and after that became a true superpower under FDR.
A superpower needs a leader. A superpower has truly global interests. America’s interests are everywhere; we’ve had scores of military bases on every continent, we’ve fought wars and battles on every continent, and all those decisions had to be made by leaders.
We trade and import and export with most of the world’s countries. But American leadership isn’t just about trade and free markets. It’s about geopolitics. The two are intertwined. Free trade in the 19th century blossomed only because the British Royal Navy had swept piracy from the high seas. That was back when the British Empire was the world’s mightiest superpower. Today, that’s America’s job.
And with the advent of nuclear weapons, America needs a leader who can make decisions that might save or end civilization on the entire planet (or at least in the Northern Hemisphere).
You don’t give authority over the nuclear launch codes to a janitor.
So…we need a king instead. That, or a dictator. ‘Cause that’s what you’re saying, there.
The logic you’ve embraced reaches to this point: claiming that over three hundred million Americans are idiots …and that only one man or woman – or a small group of them – is intelligent enough to show the rest of us how to live. We need kings (dictators) and mandarins to rule over us, while we do what we’re told, when we’re told, just that way that we’re told. If not, tragedy is certain to ewsult.
Meanwhile, in the real world, after more than a hundred years of following the lead of politicians and bureaucrats at every level, we’re looking at tragedy and economic and political collapse at every level of government. We’ve seen the worst wars in mankind’s history, as well as atrocities uncounted and almost uncountable, with economic collapses unheard of since the tulip fiasco…and you want us to do more of the same…while expecting a different result.
Back up, re-group, and try again, please. In few of past and present reality, our logic is a bit hard to swallow…
Naw. Following the same path we’ve always followed isn’t working. We need to try something just a bit different. The path we’ve been following for the past one hundred years – which you advocate and embrace – is…sub-optimal.
NO, we do NOT need a dictator.
We need what we have, which is a President who is a much stronger Chief Executive than most 19th century Presidents except Lincoln. And a Congress which needs to defer to the President on many military matters that are too urgent to wait for Congressional debate (like a missile attack on America).
Nevertheless, even a strong Chief Executive doesn’t get to tear up the Constitution and rule by decree. And concern about “the imperial Presidency” has put back certain checks and balances. The War Powers Act requires the President to certify back to Congress after six months of military action that the action is necessary and warranted. Otherwise, Congress can intervene.
We can’t go back to the era when we had time for endless Congressional debate on everything. (In the 19th century, there was no cloture to end a Senate filibuster. Filibusters could continue for an infinite amount of time.) Because we can’t go back to the era when America was safe behind two oceans and could go her own way safely.
Yours was a cheap shot. Our Constitution is set up to have a strong central President, not some weak Prime Minister, as in foreign lands. He is elected every four years, and it is almost impossible to get him out during that time. This is on purpose. The President is given sufficient time to implement his policies, to make tough decisions, and enough time to see them through to some degree of fruition, before he has to answer to us again.
Is he our leader? Yes. He is the face of our nation. He sets and conducts foreign policy. He is Commander-in-Chief, our chief defender. He can submit bills to Congress for consideration as laws. He has great ability to push Congress to do the right thing, because he can take the heat for it, providing them political cover. His likability and ability to inspire is very important in getting all this done.
We have to have this. However, we rely on the basic decency of the individual to not abuse this power. A decent people will elect such a decent man. An indecent people will not. “This government was designed for a moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to any other kind.” – John Adams The system is fine. Too few people are moral and religious, anymore.
Look at Calvin Coolidge, who was this very President described in this article. “Silent Cal”. Boom times. Budget surpluses every year, paying down the debt. Limited staff. Front porch campaign. The system did not make him be this way. He chose this path. Still, people viewed him as our President, our leader. They loved him. Nothing wrong with that. (The politicians did not like him as much, though. “He has raised doing nothing to a high art.”)
It’s not the system. It’s the people.
I recall when G H W Bush wanted to take a “wait and see” attitude to something and got excoriated for it.
What has happened is what happens in any hierarchy. The desire to be a “mover and a shaker” gets in the way of the simple notion that sometimes, the best thing to do is nothing.
Is it necessary for us to have thousands of new laws and regulations every year? Local, State, Federal? No. But it gives those elected officials something they can claim to have “accomplished”. Oh how hollow that rings.
Yes, sometimes laws are necessary but overall, doing nothing is often wise. But it bugs people because they are impatient and cannot see the benefit. ie: There’s a drought…so crops start to dwindle. The farmers are mad so a law is passed making what few crops that are available have to cost 1000% more so the farmers don’t go broke. Or, they pass a law awarding farmers some subsidies. Then, the next season, rainfall is back to normal, but the prices or subsidies remain.
Doing nothing is often very virtuous but humans often aren’t wired to understand that. Not to mention the laws of unintended consequences where a new law puts into motion a ton of other activity unexpected by the lawmakers.
Then, we’ve gotten even worse by creating agencies that have power to make regulations which, by default, are laws. Congress has that ability but has shirked its duty and handed the ability to several peripheral agencies. The EPA can fine, levy taxes and shut down non-compliant entities. That’s not in the brochure (Constitution).
The president should be the guardian of the status-quo when things are working. Sadly, by interfering, government often creates more demons than the original problem entailed.
In other words, government is not a risk-management corporation.
>we’ve fought wars and battles on every continent
Who can forget the Great American Invasions of Australia and Antarctica? Grampy would always tear up when he told those stories.
All right, more seriously: South America is quite a stretch, and even Africa is thin pickings.
Continents: Earth Has More Than Three.
“You don’t give authority over the nuclear launch codes to a janitor.”
You realize there are people in the early 20′s handling nuclear weapons every day, right?
IT IS THE LAST SUNDAY BEFORE ELECTIONS. IT’S A GOOD DAY TO WORSHIP. WE NEED ROMNEY & RYAN, “TURN AROUND” EXPERTS, PATRIOTS, FELLOW-AMERICANS:
“PRAY FOR OUR REPUBLIC”
To our shame, our devotions became casual,
Even though YOU have always been there.
When our nation was born, and later, when torn,
By the threats which oft led to despair.
How soon we forgot “Founding Fathers”,
Whose success against tyrants was due
To YOUR care, to YOUR love, to YOUR hands from above,
Which created the miracle we view.
Through the years, tyranny kept returning,
And our need made us reach out again,
And we pled, and we cried, and the best of us died,
Fighting enemies of freedom and sin.
New perils now prompt new petitions,
We must relearn lessons lost from the past,
Without THY protection, and enduring affection,
We will lose THIS FREE LAND that must last.
No rights reserved. “God is in the Game, once again.” We are not talking “creeds; doctrines; chapels/synagogues/cathedrals”. We are talking about faith in a Supreme Being, however we envision such, and WHOSE “ALMIGHTY HAND MADE AND PRESERVED THIS NATION”. Pray, contribute, encourage, BELIEVE, and then vote to make belief–reality.
ROMNEY & RYAN WIN BIG IN TWO DAYS! Liberty, Honesty, and COMPETENCE will return.
Most people know that Hitler was often referred to as “Der Fuhrer”. However, most people don’t know how that the English translation of “Der Fuhrer” is “The Leader”.
Mind you, the Nazis followed this idea called the Fuehrerprinzip, the Leadership Principle, which is described here in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip. If you look at that article, which is quite short, you’ll see the overall summary says the Fuehrerprinzip prescribed the fundamental basis of political authority in the governmental structures of the Third Reich. This principle can be most succinctly understood to mean that “the Führer’s word is above all written law” and that governmental policies, decisions, and offices ought to work toward the realization of this end.[1] In actual political usage, it refers mainly to the practice of dictatorship within the ranks of a political party itself, and as such, it has become an earmark of political Fascism.
Also, read the Ideology section of the article. Remind you of anyone we know? (Hint: It starts with “Ob” and ends with “ma”).
You give an apt description to the least part of the job of the president of the United States. The most important part of the job of president comes under the heading of, “provide for the common defense.” While Congress declares war the president is designated Warrior in Chief.
The purpose of the office of president and the federal government as a whole has been turned on its’ head. What happened? Ignorance and apathy! Less than 25% of the population, eligible to vote determine the majority of issues (that’s 50%+1 of less than 50%).
In regard to; “He has his plan (Mitt Romney) to fix America, and if 90% of the plan isn’t “stay out of everyone’s way,” he’s overthinking it. What I understand of his plan is 100% get government out of the way to the greatest extent he can. That, my friend, is a very tall order, but worthy of the effort.
We have Woodrow Wilson largely to blame for that crazy idea. Him, and the millions of Americans who blithely went along with his plans.
The comments here speak of a frustration that the article really did not hit on – when did the president become a leader rather than an administrator? Its more than simply ‘he works for us, the people.’
I would argue that the posts here that blame the rise of Progressivism get it right. Starting with Lincoln, then exploding after T.R. and Wilson, the president’s importance in this nation has expanded beyond its original intent. The problem is that we’ve become accustomed to it. What good are elected representatives in Congress when the average voter has no idea who they are? This misguided hero-worship and extreme ignorance has been around for over a century, a rock-star president like Obama (much like Kennedy) was inevitable. I doubt you will ever make it go away.
WOW, I don’t think that I can add anything to that!! This is EXACTLY what I’ve been thinking all along!!
I will say that, more often than not, the Left has a bad habit of worshiping its leaders, whereas the NeoCons do so to a lesser extent.
Thank you for an excellent article, Mr. Fleming. I have been saying this for years. I wish the media would stop referring to our elected employees as our “leaders”. They are not leaders. I do not wake up every day to ask myself “I wonder what my leaders in DC want me to do today”. All of the elected officials in Washington actually have very simple jobs that have precise descriptions in the Constitution. The problem is that they have been allowed to exceed their authority for so long that the brainwashed people in our society truly view them as leaders. I hope it is not too late to correct this.
And we need to get out of the president’s head the silly notion that he’s our leader. If America wanted a leader, we would have a special set of feats a person would have to accomplish in order to become that leader, like create a business, win a nacho-eating contest, and punch out a grizzly bear — things that display Americanness.
Classic Frank J! You are the PJ O’Rourke of Right Blogistan!
This is in line with the idea that America “needs” an Energy, Education or Health Care Policy. It is common for The Moderator to turn to the Republican and smugly ask: “So, Mr. Revulsion, What is the Republican Party’s suggestion for our Energy/Education/HealthCare Policy? Usually, the Republican tries for a Democratic-Lite solution.
Before TVA, what was America’s Energy Policy? Free enterprise built the infrastructure.
Before the Department of Education, what was America’s Education Policy.
Didn’t have “one”. Every state/locality took care of their own.
Health care policy? Trickier. I gather that may have been goofed during World War Two when employers became the primary providers of health insurance. Banning inter-state health insurance sure didn’t help.
Obama vs. Romney – Civil Liberties (Pt. 3/4) LibertyNewsNetwork1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I5Rz7PzaIk&feature=related
Frank J. is a national treasure.
Frank Fleming, you just became my hero!
He might be leading, but I ain’t following.
Of course the president is a leader. This is a ridiculous article, and no, I’m not a troll. The problem is that the disgusting and ignorant love of Obama supporters for Obama has jaded you all who seem to agree with this article.
Ok. Everyone who agreed with this unfunny take on satire can now consider themselves dismissed from being taken seriously. You all failed high school civics and reality. How you figured out how to access the internet is a legitimate question.
Obviously we are all smarter than you. You seem to believe that Obama’s ideas are great, the rest of us here do not.
The Republican/Democrats duopoly fostered the idea the President is the leader of the country. When a Republican is President, convervatives and Republicans foster the idea, and when a Democrat is President, liberals and Democrats foster the idea.
This article is clearly racist because the word “janitor” was mentioned.
The first budget Romney should cut is the WH staff budget. Symbolically, he should forgo the whole redecorating tradition. Keep the same carpet and get to work.
Americans are monarchists, through and through. The competing political parties offer differing visions of monarchy.
Only one quibble. In the second-to-last paragraph you use the word ‘Americanness’. I believe that should be ‘Americanliness’.
“And if we really want to be inspired, we can buy a set of Tony Robbins tapes.”
TAPES? What is this, 1983?
I suppose I might be able to find a set of Tony Robbins tapes in a thrift store somewhere, but what would I play them on? I haven’t owned an audiocassette player since Clinton was president.
Let it go, man – it’s like when we talk about ‘dialing’ a phone number.
Just a phrase that’s an incidental homage to the earlier technology.
Now excuse me while I tell those damn kids to get off my lawn, and crank up the Victrola…
The idea of the President holding dictatorial powers goes back a *long* time. Earlier comments trace it back to Teddy Roosevelt; Lincoln broke the Constitution a few times to hold the union together; some people wanted Washington to be a dictator, and he was a greater hero for refusing the power. Recently, GWB took to wearing epaulets and calling himself the “Commander in Chief of the American people” and the media often advanced that phrase. Obama’s centralized actions have followed in the footsteps of prior leaders who have wore down any institutionalized barriers against centralized control, and the mainstream media has been wanting a dictator-in-chief since at least the 1930s when they openly printed that America needed a “dictator”.
“Leader” is just English for “Fuehrer.”
We need a head of the executive branch of teh national government—that’s a plenty big enough job
Could Obama lead a buzzard to a dead rat?
It is a very “prog” concept, nowhere envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
The “commerce clause” has outlived its usefulness — nuke it, and all the nonsense that relies upon it.
The Fedzilla should not tax individuals, but should raise money from the governments of the 50 states.
The states should hold the federal government accountable, like the Senate was intended to do, before it was perverted into a body elected by individuals. The governors should appoint senators — most states would probably demand accountability to the state legislature of the governor for that appointment.
The Founding Fathers were brilliant, but the Succeeding Sons weren’t worthy and screwed it up. We need to retrieve and re-implement the original design.
Oh, and the penalty for abusing the public trust should be death.
Great piece, and everybody should also read Gene Healy on this topic. His book “The Cult of the Presidency” nails this stuff too.
The whole “leader”/”ruler” notion is embedded in a lot of leftist arguments and rhetoric. If you can find it, identify it and deflate it, you can save yourself a lot of time while debating them. Point out this basic idea implicit in their argument, and you’ll be striking them down at the root, a place they’re largely unacquainted with.
The left rarely considers its own premises or philosophical foundation, and when you direct their attention there, you can put a stutter in their step, at least with the typical joe-blow lefties who just embrace this stuff up without thinking, soaking it because it’s the cultural air.
(“Soaking it UP because it’s the cultural air.”)
(Sigh. Edit functionality, please!)
In your eyes, the president is only a leader of the country if he’s a Republican. If he’s a black Democrat, he’s a janitor. Couldn’t come up with a less rascist profession, could you?
“In your eyes, the president is only a leader of the country if he’s a Republican.”
Where does he write that? People’s ability to willfully misread and misconstrue stuff is just stunning sometimes.
Couldn’t come up with a more literate post, could you?
“rascist” LOL!
I think “leader vs. servant” misses the point. It is more important to discuss the purpose and limits of the Constitution.
Think of the United States as a Gardening Club, or a Men’s Club. What is their Constitution for ? It is to state the goals of the Club, and what the Club, its members and officers will and will not do, and what they can and cannot do.
In actuality, our Constitution is not really the “Law of the Land”; it’s the Rule Book. The Law of the Land is the US Code. We are all equally bound by the USC, and the people in the government are bound by the Constitution.
Once you have that straight, you can understand why this country is in the mess it’s in.
Liberals want a king (or at least a politburo/Supreme Court) that makes all our decisions for us peons out here in Stupidville (made stupid by the king’s failed statist “education” system).
Remember, our American experiment is a blip in the history of unending tyrannies.
Or, as Glenn Reynolds notes often quoting Heinlein, we’ve had a run of good luck.
I think Mr. Dylan said it best over 40 years ago. “Don’t follow leaders and watch your parking meters!”
Obama: Folks, follow me into the Chicago ghetto. It will be good for you.
Folks: See you on November 6.
The problem I have with the concept of the “President” of the USA being the “Leader” of the country is simple. In the American Revolutionary War we as a people of the colonies of Britan and France decided that we were not happy with power being invested in a monarchy under the direction of a single individual. The original thirteen colonies created the Declaration of Independance oulining our disagreement with the abuses of the British Crown. We fought a war and created the Constitution of the United States of America which deliberately separated governmental power between the states and the national system. We further separated national power into three branches of Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Power.
In the last one hundred and ten years we have persistently and insideously looked to our “President” to act as our “dictator” to a greater and greater degree. The further we get from the American Revolution, the more we forget the problems with investing too much power and control into the hands of a single individual. This problem has been made worse in our modern media environment where we treat political candidates like marketable products of success and celebrity instead of looking at them as capable administrators of the executive functions granted by the US Constitution.
In my mind a good President is one who can make sound decisions about use of the powers of the Executive Branch in the most fiscally and socially limited manner possible to maintain the peace of the nation. All the rest of these governmental functions should be delegated to the states to provide any governmental services their citizen residents want or desire. Let the states tax however much they want to pay for their services, and then give the people the freedom to select the state which provides them the best value for their tax dollar.
If people want cradle to grave social support, then there should be a number of states prepared to provide it. If the people want latitude to live their life as free as possible from government interference and taxation, then a number of states should be prepared to provide that as well.
What we do not need is one person in the office of the President deciding how best to take our money to service the greater good as they see it. That is and has always been the path to dictatorial control and abuse of the people by their government.
Its partly our own fault. How many times do we hear, whenever something bad happens anywhere, the MSM braying “why isn’t the president doing anything about xxx”, and we all fall for it, when we should be assuming the president CANT do anything about most problems, ans the real solution is to keep gov out of the wayand lets us, through the market, fix them.
Of course I have noticed the “why isn’t the president doing something” is far more likely with a repub president, while a dem like Obama will mostly get a pass. Of course if we have a dem president, and the best thing they can do is nothing, but they wont, and instead want to have big gov but in, then the press is all for them, at least until they screw everything up. Then all we hear is how limited the residents ability to fix things is, and how we ned to get used to “the new normal”.
If we want to remain a free people, we should act like one. When we have trouble, dont bellyache to the gov, unless the problem is caused by unwise gov intervention that needs to stop. Instead look to solve the problem ourselves first, without gov help.
Excellent column Frank. But you do seem to be calling a black man nothing but a janitor, you racist. (no wonder he wants to keep the job!) Though I do have to wonder, why does a janitor have the power to bankrupt a whole country, if he should be elected janitor again? And I have to wonder, if the job is so inconsequential; can I have it? I’m real quite, you know. I like people, and they seem to like me. I’m not really very sociable, but can hold my own in a crowd. If it matters to anyone, I don’t play golf, and hate to travel. I’m a real homebody. And I have no problem leaving people alone. I tip well, and give to charity on occasion. I drink de-caffe, and exercise regularly. Oh, and I’m real tidy, and neat. I hope one day the job will be mine. Especially in this job market.