Obama, Trump and the powers of the Presidency

[aldiboronti]

From The Washington Post

Trump will have vast powers. He can thank Democrats for them.

Sen. Barack Obama certainly saw <the dangers of an over-powerful Presidency> when he first ran for president in 2008. Limiting executive-power abuses and protecting civil liberties were central themes of his campaign. The former law professor repeatedly railed against the Bush-Cheney template of vesting the president with unchecked authorities in the name of fighting terrorism or achieving other policy objectives. …

Yet, beginning in his first month in office and continuing through today, Obama not only continued many of the most extreme executive-power policies he once condemned, but in many cases strengthened and extended them. His administration detained terrorism suspects without due process, proposed new frameworks to keep them locked up without trial, targeted thousands of individuals (including a U.S. citizen) for execution by drone, invoked secrecy doctrines to shield torture and eavesdropping programs from judicial review, and covertly expanded the nation’s mass electronic surveillance.

Blinded by the belief that Obama was too benevolent and benign to abuse his office, and drowning in partisan loyalties at the expense of political principles, Democrats consecrated this framework with their acquiescence and, often, their explicit approval. This is the unrestrained set of powers Trump will inherit. The president-elect frightens them, so they are now alarmed. But if they want to know whom to blame, they should look in the mirror.

Obama’s approach to executive power flipped so quickly and diametrically that’s it is impossible to say if he ever believed his campaign-era professions of restraint.

Is this a just assessment? Did Obama and the Democrats prime the weapon he’s now handing to Trump? Is it fair to imply that his campaign promises of restraint were insincere? Or is it more likely that on seeing the security situation and assessing the threats as President a good man simply changed his mind? Wouldn’t Trump have extended Presidential powers anyway even if Obama had worked to limit them?

[PastTense]

No, Obama continued doing the same type of things as Bush did–not an expansion and strengthening of them.

[WillFarnaby]

Indeed. Bush fathered Obama and his never-ending drone war and assassinations. Obama also inspired Trump with his mass deportations.

[jayjay]

Jesus, it’s Greenwald…

[control-z]

Yes I think we may be seeing the start that same sort of disconnect between campaign promises and post-election attitude with Trump. During his campaign building a wall and repealing the ACA were priorities, now that he’s talked to Obama they don’t seem as important to him.

Maybe it’s just that a presidential campaign is an echo-chamber of supporters and staff that gets more and more removed from reality.

So do politicians just lie to get elected, or upon winning are they told information that makes them change their mind?

I’ve often wondered how much of the non-elected government persists in spite of elections, and how much influence and power they have over the elected positions. From day one there are going to be government employees guiding the president-elect on what they need to know and do. Who are all these people, who hired them, and what are their qualifications and biases?

I have read there are over 4,000 White House staff positions and I’m sure a new president isn’t going to hand-pick even half of them, it will probably just be business as usual for those that don’t stand out. What are the biases of those staff, and how much influence, large and small, do they have on the Oval Office? What various people are the source of all the briefs that the president gets, and how complete, accurate, and even biased is that information?

[PatrickLondon]

@control-z

or upon winning are they told information that makes them change their mind?

That’s about the size of it. I believe very few politicians knowingly lie: they are prone to deceive themselves that a general claim or aspiration is something that can be achieved. But confronting politicians with the realities is what a permanent civil service is for.