No. 20: The Royal President?
October 10th 2008 22:29
The King's Highway
Since the citizens of the United States declared their independence from England, we have continued looking eastward to the U.K. for many of our traditions and standards. This is natural since during the previous two hundred years we were ruled by one monarchial system or the other in Europe.
Most of America's major controlling interests were domiciled in the Northeastern colonies and continued their control as leaders once the American Revolution and War of 1812 were behind us. Too high a percentage of Americans do not even know that the major money makers and power brokers of this great nation had their seeds planted there long before our Declaration of Independence, and many of their heirs continue holding this power today.
A lot of business owners, and wealthy merchants, were threatened by a break away from the commerce guaranteed by Britain and were loyal to the English throne up until they recognized it was too late to continue that path and felt forced, adjusting their ways to the new reality.
Many of these "old money" participants and Social Registry members have retained their power right up until today. Their influence was evident even back in the election of Abraham Lincoln (a Madisonian seeking to centralize our government more and more), and the subsequent tariffs which contributed to the secession of many states from the Union. (This is a topic for another post later.)
Their influence in establishing much of the institutions and traditions we have today is everywhere. Let us take a look at the way the Presidency is treated in our land. In short, the officeholder is treated like a king! We pay a special song when he enters the room, we provide the ultimate in housing and personal services, such as waiters and special chefs. He is paid an adequate salary with a great pension, plus, he gets special protection for the rest of his, and his spouse's, lives. A special plane is also provided for the President.
Personally, I have no problem with the security details for life. This is for many reasons, not the least of which we do not want a murdered President, or his wife, again. Providing a nice home with servants and cooks is okay also. The plane could be scaled back. Having the remote White House is a good idea, but all the special comforts and accommodations are questionable. You may disagree. The salary and pension are all right by me.
Here, my largest pet peeve is playing a special "Da da ta da, da ta da ta da ta da ta" for our chief executive every time the President enters a room. I think it is ridiculous. After all, he or she is only an administrator -- not a king! Stop it already! We are not only sending the wrong message to our own people, but are telling the world we think this office is the apex of all world positions. It may be, but is this regaling necessary? It is elitist at the least, and pompus egotism at the worst.
When we tell our people that this office is god like, we are setting ourselves up for the ultimate let down. The President is human. This was made evident during the Bill Clinton administration and the behavioral misdeeds he did personally.
Most of us agree the position is powerful, but have we expected too much by our possibly false perceptions of it? Prior to Nixon, we tended to favor strong presidents like both Roosevelts, Truman, and Eisenhower of the last century. It seems our earlier generations wanted a strong presidency to balance out the tricameral system of government, so that no branch could exert too much pressure and influence on the total body.
When a President comes along who disappoints us, we withdraw. We did this after the Watergate fiasco. Just look at the candidates who have run for the office ever since Nixon. Most were well-intentioned, but too weak to move Congress in ways that defended our free market system and our freedoms in general. Even when they disagreed, they seemed to capitulate to the more socialistic of our people and appointed leftist judges or sent pork-barrel-filled budgets before Congress. At the least they did not use their veto pens often enough.
Since Nixon, it appears the U.S. media has taken the very visual appearance of disliking presidential candidates whom they perceive may be strong. Perhaps they are afraid a strong president will assume, or garner, too much power and take us into war unnecessarily as in Vietnam; or perhaps, they are afraid of a coup -- who knows? Could it be they recognize a strong President will run interference in a long, carefully-planned trek toward socialism?
Just take a look at a few of our options over the past few years.
Gerald Ford -- a good man, but not the kind of man who made the press tremble. The press never let him live down the "Jerry Falwell" monicker after once slipping while deboarding a plane. The press made him weaker by making him cartoonish.
Jimmy Carter -- A brilliant Naval officer who was treated as an ignorant dirt farmer from Georgia. The press revelled in parading his entire family and their antics out for laughter. Remember Brother Billy? Admittedly, he may have been in over his head with the Iranian mess and the economy. These were legitimate concerns, but a stronger Congress and media could have worked harder to avoid these problemb by working with the man, instead of laughing at him his entire term.
Ronald Reagan -- The press came out for him because they felt he was weaker than they knew. The press panned him for months as just "an actor." He fooled his distractors.
Bush 34 -- a well-intentioned man who did not have the poise of a statesman of strong leadership; although he did surprise us at times. Look at his opponent during the campaign and it is easy to see why he was elected for a term.
Clinton came out of the 60s "burn-the-draft-card" mentality and stated he
"loathed the military." At first, because of his humble background, the press felt he would be weak and no threat to the democracy. As time passes, this last statement is drawn more into question by such things as his signing of the bill allowing brokerage firms, banks and insurance companies to merge and act as one. THIS HAS MUCH TO DO WITH OUR CURRENT WALL STREET CRISIS!
G.W. Bush's first opponent was Al Gore. Gore's Shrek-like posture, his oration and his claim to have "invented the Internet" reminded many of high school bragadocios we disliked from the first sight. The media, however, loved him it seems since he appeared the weaker of the two.
Bush's next opponent was John Kerry a man who claimed to have been a war hero, but could not rebut the "Swift Boart" participants who were there when he claimed to have fought. If the charges are true, then he was a fraud. The press felt he too was weaker than Bush and loved him.
Bush was elected because people at the time did not want Congress to be overly strong and felt a stronger President could counter this imbalance. The media, however, went for the one they felt was the weakest.
Now, we have a choice between a genuine war hero, a mult-decade serving senator and a man whose main accomplishment in life is that he was a "community organizer" for ACORN. Who do you think is the weaker of the two candidates? Who do you feel will be treated more like a king, than a president?
If you are American, you would be well advised to read up on both candidates before entering the polling booth, and take an especially critical look at whom the media endorses the most. Please remember, the media want the best of both worlds -- a king-like leader, and a weak one at that.
In the meantime, keep it between the lines.
.
| 36 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
