The 45th President

[davidswanson]

The United States has had 44 presidents and nobody knows who the 45th will be. For the sake of argument let’s imagine for a minute something that is a very definite possibility. Let's imagine that the 45th president will belong to a political party you detest, will espouse the opposite position from yours on matters dear to your heart, and will strike you as completely unlikeable, untrustworthy, irresponsible, and dangerous. Let's imagine that #45 will want to do everything you oppose and will speak in the most odious and arrogant way about doing so. You won't like the substance or the rhetoric. Number 45, of course, will not fit that description for every one of us, but someone between number 45 and number 50 (assuming we make it that far) will almost certainly fit that description for you, and it's as likely to be #45 as any other number.

Now, let's stop to consider what powers #45 will inherit from the previous 44 men, what powers have been used by at least one previous president in recent years without being blocked by Congress or the courts or a subsequent president: the powers to rewrite laws with signing statements, to create laws by simple decree, to draft and act on secret laws specifically written to retroactively and proactively legalize crimes, to produce phony media stories and otherwise engage in domestic propaganda campaigns, to reduce congressional oversight to one-way communications from the White House at the pleasure of the president, to launch and prolong and escalate wars, to lie the congress and the public into supporting wars, to misspend funds appropriated for other things, to rewrite tax laws, to hand out trillions of dollars without oversight, to use illegal weapons and commit countless war crimes with impunity, to spy without warrants, to detain indefinitely without charge, to torture, to murder, to run the government as an election campaign using public funds to support candidates including the president, to selectively leak classified information and to baselessly classify information, to keep anything secret, to try people in kangaroo court military commissions, to create foreign treaties and appoint high officials without consulting the congress, to read your mail and Email and listen in on your phone calls, to rig elections, and to throw out any court case on the basis of an unverifiable claim.

I'm asking you to imagine giving these powers to the worst person who could hold them, a person who would abuse them drastically and whose abuse would be in no way disguised or hidden. Maybe when George W. Bush said that the United States does not torture, while torturing, that satisfied you. Maybe when Barack Obama said the United States would no longer torture (but supposedly never really had) although he would still claim the power to do so that satisfied you. But the primary offense is not the torturing. It is the establishing of the power to torture and passing of that power on to all future presidents. When George W. Bush used signing statements to rewrite laws and give himself powers of torture, spying, secrecy, and spending, maybe you thought that was good because he was a Republican. Or maybe you think it's acceptable for Barack Obama to have just erased congressional oversight of his Wall Street "bailout" because he's a Democrat. In either case, the overwhelmingly most serious and dangerous offense is the creation of the power to legislate in the hands of all future presidents including the worst president ever: #45.

So, while we should try to judge the current president by his actions rather than his brand, and the current congress the same way, we should also be clear on what the most significant actions are: they are the actions that eliminate or more firmly establish unconstitutional powers in the hands of future "executives," whether or not those powers are immediately abused. When a Republican president declares the power to detain people indefinitely without charge and then a Democratic president does the same, if the result is that all Americans who've given their loyalty to one of those parties now approve of giving that power to all future presidents, we can kiss representative democracy goodbye. If, on the other hand, we all agree to oppose giving that power to any single person ever, we might manage to keep the republic.

So, what to do? The first step toward restoring the rule of law before #45 appears is prosecuting the crimes of #43. The second step is reforming the conduct of #44. The third step is moving powers away from #44 and all future presidents and to the Congress (combined with reforming congressional elections). And these steps can all take place at once and should all begin immediately. The detailed guide to making them happen can be found at http://prosecutebushcheney.org

[Greyhound]

1. Well that's the problem, isn't it?

Once power is taken, it is rarely surrendered. I'm certain that the recipient of that power has justified using it "for good", but as we are beginning to see, the reality is that it is used to gather even more power.

Power for power's sake.

[denem]

18. A Republican would have said the same thing about FDR

in '34, '37, and especially '42, so let's not even whisper Truman in '45 and '47. Fail. No FDR, no JFK. Take power and use it. Big time. A good politician carries the center, a great politician moves it. As in TR's day, congress is deeply compromised. It takes a President.

[PeteytehMawnstar]

2. Nice piece,

I like to think the most important thing to work on are the Crapmentals of our economy, but in all likelihood, prosecuting with the message of scaling back these powers should be at the mental forefront. I like your phrase, "reforming the conduct of number 44." I knew Mr. O wasn't going to be big change on the foreign policy front, there's still time to be proven wrong on that opinion, but i don't see it happening. Honestly, and this is just my humble view, i don't think we'll get real "change" until we have some strong third parties.

[csziggy]

3. Excellent - a very compelling argument for removing the 'unitary executive' powers

I was naive - I had hoped that President Obama would roll back all those excessive powers and stop the Justice Department's defense of them in the various court cases left over from the Bush/Cheney regime. That he hasn't is a disappointment for me and makes me want those powers removed however we citizens can make it happen. I'm surprised the Republicans are calling for retention of these extraordinary powers and not fighting Obama more to remove them now that they are not in control of the Executive branch.

[bvar22]

4. They ALL work for the same boss.

So its ALL good.

*More WARS

*BIGGER Defense Budgets

*"Bailouts" for Billionaires

*Protection for the Health Insurance & Pharm Industry

*No Prosecutions for previous Unitary Executives

Unitary Executives are GOOD for Big Money!
What's not to like? :shrug:

[csziggy]

8. So will we have to fire the current batch and hire a new government that will pay attention to us?

Because that what it may come down to eventually.

[Auggie]

15. More or less

Just enough to give us a strong majority

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. And the ones who don't can't get any traction. The Corporate Owned Media shuts them down, ignores

and marginalizes them.

[bvar22]

23. There IS a "touchstone".

In the 40 years I have been following Party Politics, there has NEVER been an issue as Black vs White as current Health Care Reform. On every other issue there has been a valid rationalization for Democrats to vote with Republicans. On Health Care TReform, there is only ONE:

If a Democrat does NOT actively support (at minimum) a viable Public Option,.... one that does NOT funnel $Billions into the pockets of the Health Care Industry....then THAT "Democrat" is a loyal servant of the Health Care Industry and NOT the American Working Class (the other 95% of us).

There are currently 93 co-sponsors for HR 676 (Medicare for ALL).
You can find your REAL Democrats on that list.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[pleah]

5. K&R

[MasonJar]

6. Everyone please go to the link and e-mail Holder. It's easy.

[ChiciB1]

27. Will Do & Will Send It Around To All I Can Reach! n/t

[BobTheSubgenius]

7. A very nice piece, and VERY hard to argue with.

Every single American (and, given America's reach, most people on the planet) has a stake in this, and should see the logic here. Laws and powers and procedures can't be taken so lightly and with such short-term views has they have been.

It's hard to accurately identify a turning point as it's happening; it's most often only obvious in hindsight. Let's hope we don't look back and see 43 as The Turning Point.

[Kablooie]

9. Rush Limbaugh's gonna have a lot of fun when he wins in 2012.

[Senator]

10. K&R

[flvegan]

11. I'm voting Kucinich for #45.

Assuming I'm able.

[Oldenuff]

12. K&R....if it's not too late already for us.

n/t

[kristopher]

13. I think the positions must coexist

The problem isn't whether the president has the authority to order torture in an emergency situation, the problem is that there is the desire that this would be done with no accountability.

One fact - the job of the president is to protect this nation from attack. Another fact is that torture is and should be illegal. It shouldn't be legal for a Marine Captain to do to protect his men and it shouldn't be legal for the president to order it. But most of us recognize that sometimes it necessary to break the law because, well, it is simply a necessity determined by weighing the damage sustained from terrorizing a prisoner against the lives that prisoner is willing and trying to take. It is a valid argument and it is a path that humans have always and will always sometimes pursue.

The obvious counter argument is also valid, if we grant dispensation to some special group to commit acts that are against the law for everyone else in order to do a legitimate public good (such as a time bomb, or beating up a kidnapping suspect to find the victim before they suffocate in their buried box {a favorite of films}) then there is the inevitability that this authority will be abused.

The answer seems obvious to me. There must be accountability. Not retribution, not political theater, but honest accountability. If a cop beats a suspect and rescues the kid, then punishment is the reward for the cop. The same goes for a president. If they are acting altruistically then they must act with the knowledge that their actions carry a price they they personally must pay. The reward for being such a hero simply can't be a parade

Prosecute the neocon bastards.

[Solly Mack]

14. They know what they can get away with it - and next time , it will be worse

as they push for more

K&R

[tomp]

16. perhaps obama wants these powers.

these "powers" were not created from whole colth to "combat terrorism" as purported. these are powers that the ruling powers will need when the shit REALLY hits the fan. in fact, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the economic system will utterly crash while obama is in office. he will need every power of popular suppression available to him. you can also be certain that with or without the legal "powers" the government will act to suppress the people. what we are seeing in obama is the exposure of the democratic party as not being the friends of the people they have been thought to be.

[flyarm]

21. HERE , HERE.. I believe you hit the nail on the head!! eom

[Honeycombe8]

17. Moving power to the Congress? I'm not with you there, buddy.

You said, "The third step is moving powers away from #44 and all future presidents and to the Congress (combined with reforming congressional elections)."

Congress seems to be ineffectual at key moments in history. Notably during the Patriot Act votes, the Iraq War votes, knowledge of torture, etc., etc.

No, Congress has its parameters, and the executive branch has its. Congress' main function regarding the executive branch is as a checks and balances part of the process. NOT that the power should be removed from one branch and put into the hands of another.

Congress is more susceptible to pandering to small groups of people (the people with money in each member's constituency). Note the large # of votes for the Iraq War, when most of them almost certainly knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But they had to vote that way in order to win re-election by their moneyed constituency members, who were probably in a patriotic vengeful fervor, as many citizens were. But we know they almost certainly knew that the Iraq War was senseless, because so many ordinary citizens (like those of us in this forum) knew. It was obvious.

[LWolf]

19. K & R nt

[flyarm]

20. Excellent and i sent to all my internet groups!! Thank you David!!

and get ready to join us all under the bus!!

the attackers will soon decend upon you!! I just wonder how much it is worth to them $$ wise to shut down all truth and decent????

Excellent essay !!!!

And the truth !!

Thank god there are still some around here that value truth and our constitution..by the likes of the attack "group" AROUND HERE..THE GROUP THINKERS I CALL THEM....IT MAKES ONE WONDER!

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

24. The same Constitutional violations

and the same inhumane violations as happened under Bush in my life continue under Obama.

I'm talking about more than emails being read. I'm talking about more than phone calls being listened to.

I'm talking about people that come into my home during the 45 minutes I'm at the store going through my personal things, stealing from me, going through my computer, all without a warrant.

I'm talking about a number of things that added up amount to torture.
I'm talking about constant surveillance. I'm talking about loud noise, I'm talking about the ability to violate me, a 54 year old woman, in a sexual manner.

All done under Bush, all continued under Obama.

Things did not change. And many in congress know about it, some I believe are actively part of it.

I have been unable to acquire an attorney for years now. Even if I could my telling of these abusive violations would deem me crazy before I would be believed. That is the insidiousness of the govt. taking away what the Constitution is supposed to guarantee for citizens.

This US govt. has followed my life now for over 10 years through the usage of a microchip they implanted in my arm without my knowledge or consent.

Over 10 years ago. Why? I don't know why. I don't know what would compel the United States of America to implant someone with some sort of microchip to later use to torture them.

But it happens still, under Obama.




I have the evidence in my arm. It is the only thing that could possibly make me believable because I could not put it there or know where to get it. I'm a million dollar piece of equipment, and that's how I'm treated...like property that no one will talk to let alone represent legally.

You would all shutter if you knew personally the powers davidswanson talks about here.

[Piewhacket]

25. Agree with your conclusions. nt

[ChiciB1]

26. Astounding & Hit This One Out Of The Park!! You've Simplified It Enough

so that others "should" be able to make sense of, rather than using one excuse after another to give "explanations" as to WHY "we the people" seem so fearful to look at this in any other way!!!

Crimes were committed, WE KNOW IT, and to allow it to continue CAN NOT be excused, regardless of who the POTUS is OR which party is in power!!

I concur with all you have said, sincerely support your premise and am glad that you FINALLY posted it so well. I KNOW many here at DU don't agree, I've been seeing it for quite some time now, still I feel YOU have told it like it is!

I'm SURE the debate will go on from those who disagree and those of us who DO agree will still be looked upon as "traitors" and a myriad of other names I've seen used here... but add me to the list on YOUR side!! THANK YOU!

JMHO, and I'll let David Swanson's statement stand for me and won't get into a pissing match with anyone!

:wow: :thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

28. Fuck Yeah

:bounce: