Remember the W years? Not all that long ago? When Republicans were arguing for maximum scope of presidential autonomy from Congress, maximum powers, maximum freedom of action, even to the point of attaching an unprecedented number of “signing statements” to bills, all based on the strong version of the unitary executive theory?
Shouldn’t Pubs now be arguing that Obama has that same scope of autonomy/powers/freedom? Instead of, say, calling him a dictator and a tyrant for issuing the exact same kind of executive order limiting deportation of immigrations that Reagan and GHWB issued?
Why don’t you ask why Obama has forgotten how bad the unitary executive is?
Obama Town Hall event, Lancaster, PA, 2008:
As David Bernstein wryly observes, listeners thought he meant that the biggest problems have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. What he actually meant was that the biggest problems have to do with *George Bush *trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all.
And sure enough, he reversed it. George Bush is no longer trying to bring any power into the executive branch. Barack Obama is.
I can’t speak for conservatives as a whole, but I can tell you my position: the President has the power, absent Congressional limitation, to do what he’s doing. i don’t support his choice as a matter of wise policy, but i acknowledge he has the power to do it.
You won’t find any complaints from me on that score.
Because I am governed by principles. It was OK for Bush to do it; it’s OK for Obama to do it.
Now, liberals, how about you? Was it OK for Bush to do it?
FTR I think exactly this as well, except I am not sure it’s unwise policy. But on the larger point, I thought Bush was within his rights before, and that Obama is within his now.
Ultimately the answer is that both sides of the aisle are hypocrites. If the Pubs start pushing to do away with the filibuster in January, do you think the Dems will say “Great idea”? or will it be “You’re trying to oppress the minority after the 2014 voters gave us a mandate to work together.”
In this context, what matters is not the technical legal aspects. What matters is the extent to which the actions area departure from prior practice. It’s my understanding that these actions - and Obama’s conduct generally, on a broad range of issues and types of actions - have pushed the envelope far beyond what’s previously been the accepted approach, and are testing the political structure of this country as a result.
The ones in Congress know that if they were to cooperate with a black president they’d never win another nomination for their job. They may not be racists personally, but if they break the code of shunning the black guy they’d be out in the street after the next primary.
Liberals care about separation and limitations on power. They only don’t seem to care because they need to be resolute against the wackos in the GOP.
Obama would be fine working with Congress if it wasn’t filled with crazy people. Obama tried to get the GOP onboard for immigration, health reform, gender equality, insurance mandates, etc. but the GOP refused to work with him. Democrats are not hypocritical on this issue, its only the GOP
I have no doubt there are plenty of “bush droolz, obama rulz” liberal fanboys out there. However, it’s quite possible to believe that Bush was wrong and Obama right without hypocrisy.
It can reasonably be argued that the Unitary Executive is a genie that can’t be put back into the bottle. It was wrong of Bush to set the precedent; but once the precedent had been set, it’s totally unreasonable to expect Democrats to unilaterally abandon that power, especially after it was used to force through all kinds of policy that the Dems opposed.
In other words, while Obama’s supporters and Bush’s detractors may individually be ill-informed or biased, the position they hold is not inherently contradictory.
On the other hand, I can’t think of an even superficially rational justification to support Bush’s unitary executive while criticizing Obama for doing the same. It doesn’t even pass the smell test. Unless there is some subtlety I’m missing?
For the most part Liberals and Conservatives in the US want to claim Thomas Jefferson as a part of their makeup and history.
Before he was President he was in favor of a profoundly weak executive branch, as President he wanted powers expanded. A great number of people of any political stripe have far less reservations about expanding executive power when someone they share an alliance with holds the office. Most people hate the idea of expanded when their “enemy” is in office and may actively try to curtail powers.
Whenever anyone wants more powers you should remember that its likely someone you find to be evil, incompetent, or demented will eventually be President and the powers held by more benign presidents will be precedents.
The republican opposition to all things related to Obama have been a wholesale departure from prior practice and have pushed the envelope far beyond what’s previously been accepted approach. Perennial filibustering of his nominees, refusing to work with him on anything and blaming HIM for it, etc.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is Obama finally realizing that republicans are not acting in good faith
Congress’s remedy to an overreaching executive is impeachment. It was when Bush II was president, and it is when Obama is president.
Expecting the extremely narcissistic, stupid and mentally ill corporate bribe takers who inhabit Congress to be logically consistent and philosophically principled is wishful thinking at best.
On the contrary, the Democrats have been responsible for the onset of each of those tactics, and are then subsequently outraged when the tactics are used against them. Robert Bork’s nomination was sidelined by threats of filibusters, an action essentially without precedent.
But let me guess – Bork was a dangerous nominee, and it was RIGHT to do that to him. Wrong to do it to Obama’s good and decent servants of the public, though.
In my estimation, Obama is a liberal centrist, he truly believes in the power of argument and compromise. It is, in present circumstances, a faith that surpasseth all understanding. And he continues in that faith. he says “OK. I do what I gotta do, but we could still make a deal, you know…”.
And compromise is not dependent on the good nature of the antagonists, even enemies can make a deal. Almost always better that they do, which is why the liberals are right. “Almost always”, which is when the radicals are right.