At first, I was barely interested in the whole "birther" debate, but now, after the last week's reactions to Obama's bland-as-a-mayonnaise-sandwich-on-enriched-white-bread-with-crust-cut-off sandwich speeches, I've come to a hypothesis I would like to share.
Is it possible that the reaction to Obama (as mainstream, unconfrontational and bland as he is) - in the form that he "deserves no respect as a valid President" - is a logical outcome of the desire by a segment of the political spectrum for a Unitary Executive President?
In this mindset, a legitimate Unitary President is all-powerful and so must be faithfully obeyed. Anything else is treasonous at worst, disloyal at best. For these folks, only if the President is NOT legitimate, can he be freely dissented from. So the only legitimate way for a person who believes in the Unitary Exectuive to dissent from the President is for that person to first not agree that individual is a legitimate President.
Put this down as one more bad legacy of the Cheney administration.
Sorry, no links on this one, just an observation.
- okanogen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Interesting observation
However, this is the play they've been running against Dems for 20+ years. Remember, Bill Clinton wasn't a legitimate president because he won only a plurality rather than a majority of the vote. And anyone could say absolutely anything about Bill and Hillary Clinton: they were running drugs out of the Little Rock airport in the 1980s; they killed Vince Foster; etc. (As many readers here probably already know, Bob Somerby at dailyhowler.com is good about reminding us of the same old plays that were run against the Clintons that have been dusted off and refreshed for use in this decade.) Recall all of the dark warnings about Al Gore's coup d'etat during the Florida Recount crisis of Nov.-Dec. 2000: they were expressions of Republican ambitions, not Democratic ones.
According to many of our fellow Americans, Democratic presidents are illegitimate because they're Democrats. While I would like to see Obama reach deep inside and find his inner LBJ, I don't think that's going to mollify or silence the solid 30% or so of the American electorate who will never see any D president as legitimate.
At this point...
... I'm hard pressed to see either party as legitimate, though they are very different.
Certainly the two-party system is not legitimate.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Yes, Clinton too
The "Unitary Executive" theory goes back to Nixon, it was a fringe movement but grew up with the extreme right wing's (and neo-con's) takeover of the Republican party.
In some ways, Somerby is talking about that phenomenon here in his "Enabling the (un)real McCoys" series.
To "Unitary Executive" proponents (most of these are Republicans), presidents who are not "part of their side" must be made illegitimate in order to for them to be internally consistent. That was true for Clinton (murderer, impeachment), Gore (liar, election theif, Brooks Brother's Riot), Kerry (coward, traitor, illegitimate medals, swift boat) and now Obama (ferigner, black). If Hillary was elected they would have needed to pull the same antics and we can guess what they would be.
Is there no difference between the parties? Certainly we live in a democracy of competing corporations, rather than voters, but still it is debatable that there is NO difference and one of the main differences is found in this "Unitary Executive" concept. So though I have no love for Obama, I'm just pointing out the style of the debate.
And yes, there was a faction on the progressive/democrat/green side that viewed Bush as "selected, not elected". I think there is a difference between the two phenomena for three reasons. First, "selected, not elected" came out because of the extreme facts of the case, and because, (and no small point) in the first election, it basically was true. Second, that viewpoint was never even tacitly legitimized by the Democratic party, and the "Obama is illegitimate" as well as "Impeach Clinton" viewpoints ARE tacitly (sometimes outright) legitimized by a large portion of the Republican party. Third, "selected, not elected" didn't come out of necessity based on a philosophy.
This is actually a meta observation. I'm laying down a marker for something to look for in some mythical future, should a president ever get elected who represents my interests (say for example in a three-way race). To a metaphysical certitude, he/she will be decried as illegitimate by a large proportion of the right, and possibly the entire Republican party, it will be based on whatever stick is handy to beat the dog, and it will be largely driven by their need to attack the individual who is president. They won't (as they aren't now)attack the powers of the presidency itself. The attacks will be (as they are now) fashioned as personal attacks on that individual.
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.
Truthers, birthers—
people know that secrets are being kept and questions left unanswered. When there's no information, speculation will run rampant.
Look, we're still in the dark about Obama's health care/insurance plan after the big speech that was supposed to spell it out—trying to divine his intent from reading chicken entrails.
All we know is that someone is trying to pull a fast one. And Obama is sneaky and has a lot to hide. Why are all of his records sealed? And why did WTC 7 fall down?
You don't give someone the benefit of the doubt when you no longer trust them.
No, no
I can't tell you how many times I've seen the GOP and conservatives bring Truthers up everytime Birthers get brought up. Outside of both groups having foundings in conspiracy, there is no comparison between the two. It's not only a red herring but a false equivalency.
Truthers never got beyond fringe level. There were plenty of folks (as their would be in any event as large as 9/11) who questioned if they were being told everything, but beyond that, Truthers were never given a microphone (or managed to snatch it away), and were soundly ridiculed by the majority of Democrats.
The Birthers are mainstream in the Republican Party, now. They aren't just tolerated, but actually have sitting legislatures that have publically voiced solidarity with the movement, if only timidly, by also asking the president to submit his birth certificate to them. No, no mainstream opposition goes from not trusting a guy on health care to openly questioning his nationality. This is borne in something much deeper than some simple difference in political ideology or worldview.
And truthers are not equivalent to birthers in influence, size, or aim. One saw an unprecendented and masterfully orchestrated attack on thousands of American civilians and asked how could it have been pulled off against the most powerful nation in the world. The other saw a copy of a legitimate birth certificate and somehow jumped to the question of how could it possibly be real. You can't even build a bridge a quarter-way over the illogical mental chasm of the the latter, not even a quarter-way.
No, mainstream partisans and ideologues don't go from not trusting the president (which happens with any president), to this and this, and this, and etc... In this case, though it was mightly abused during the primaries, I think DCblogger hits very close to the point. Whereas I don't believe that it's all about racism, the one single common thread connecting these disperate movements and criticisms is a string of embedded racism and xenophobia.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
We haven't covered that here...
... and I have to say I'm with CannonFire on Controlled Demolition. I could also well believe that some of the truly foily types were funded, to discredit the entire movement. And one does ask, just as with the fall of Lehman, cuo bono?
Another festering mess. Shystee's old notion of "emergent conspiracy" is relevant here, I think.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
it is all about race
Obama is black, so he ins't really American. I really think it is that simple.
I don't understand why Obama did not sue for libel when this first emerged. This is a rare situaiton where you can prove a negative, This keeps getting repeated because there is not penalty for doing so. Let Obama sue and everyone will shut up but quick.
Right-wing authoritarianism
I'd change the causation a little: the preference for a Unitary Executive and the need to delegitimate Obama as President springs from right-wing authoritarianism. You can't fight against authority but you can say "Well, that's not the legitimate authority."
Racism is one tendency of right-wing authoritarianism. Racism is explanatory for why this particular president is being delegitimated, not for why delegitimacy must (in these people's minds) occur.
I think the (unconscious) thinking goes:
A black man as President is totally at odds with our vision of "America." ("I want my country back!") His ascension to the Presidency must be flawed in some way.
We're can't attack who or how the majority chose—that would conflict with values of "democracy," "the electoral process," etc., in essence, the "established order" —but we can say that who they chose is ineligible.
Every apathetic citizen is a silent enlistee in the cause of inverted totalitarianism.—Sidney Wolin