Humans search for limits. Put a man in a dark cell and he will seek to find the walls, moving for the sole purpose of discovering where he needs to stop. Give a teenager a fast car and he will want to discover just how fast it really is. Give a tyrant Czechoslovakia and he’ll invade Poland.
Besides the natural limits imposed upon us by environment and our own physical constraints, the first guides most of us have for identifying societal limits are our parents. One of the first words learned in most toddler’s receptive vocabulary is “NO”. For a time, “no” became a dirty word amongst parental advisors, and young parents were instructed to use the word sparingly or not at all. We’ve all seen the results; toddler tantrums, teens behaving outrageously, and adults who believe they are the center of the universe; unguided regarding limits, they come to imagine there should be none, and react abominably when they discover there are. We do children no favors by keeping them in the dark when it comes to appropriate limits. It can be difficult, particularly with a strong willed child, but that is supposed to be one of the things you sign on for when you become a parent.
Of course if your parents aren’t there, they can’t very well instruct you on limits. Barack Obama Sr. may have left dreams for his son, the future President, but otherwise he was largely absent in his upbringing. After divorcing the elder Obama, young Barack’s mother remarried and moved him to Indonesia, but he was soon returned to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents. Now I know that some grandparents do a superb job of child rearing; but I am a grandparent, and I also know that the all important “no” comes a little less naturally to grandparents. A single child raised by grandparents in paradise? One could understand if Barack Obama emerged from that upbringing having seldom being told “no”. In any event his current political demeanor reflects the attitude of a man who has rarely heard that word. A combination of circumstances and ability has led to a man who has won every election in his career but one, including some he probably should have lost. His seemingly charmed progression from community organizer to Commander in Chief may have contributed to a sense of manifest destiny, and the hubris to believe that the term “Commander” should apply to more than just the armed forces. Indeed, some of his supporters, like Chris Rock, would seem to view him as the country’s boss or dad!
Such was the animosity of the founders toward tyranny that they intentionally designed a government that no single man could rule. Our Constitution and the system of checks and balances it outlines were intended to serve as limits to the government itself, a way to say “no” to leaders exceeding the powers delegated to them. Men will constantly test limits, it is in our nature, but with politicians just as with children, it serves no one to be permissive when they push beyond the rules. No mortal man is invincible, but success can create that illusion. Hence the propensity for the arrogant to overreach. There is little question that the media has been in the tank for the President from the beginning, but rather than a humble acceptance of his good fortune, he has begun to believe his own toady press. As such, the President is moving ahead full bore with his liberal agenda, apparently not having learned the lesson of 2010. Whether we are still a center-right electorate, or whether we have begun the move to center-left, the operative word is “center”, and the voters do not long suffer radicals of any persuasion.
IMHO: We do the nation no favor to extend to any President or politician permissiveness when they violate the constitution or principles upon which our government is founded. Limits are a function of reality, and make good public policy. Most presidents would prefer to function without such checks and balances as debt limits, congressional oversight, and judicial review; but that is why it’s “Mr. President” and not “Your Highness”. As with any other relationship we see moving in the wrong direction, it is best to nip the problem in the bud. If the President can be instructed on his limits early in this term, perhaps the next four years won’t be a total waste. If the President misinterprets his fortuitous election success as a mandate for transforming our beloved country to a shadow of its greatness; if he chooses to proceed by ignoring the Constitution and the specified structure of the Republic, if he mistakes the momentary naivete of the voters for either informed consent or a permanent state of stupidity… then there may need to come a day when We the People remind him who really are the dads, moms, and bosses of this country. He may finally need to hear the word so unfamiliar to him: “No!” …Hell no!
After the landslide November election that our ”naive” electorate delivered, I believe it is safe to say that the nation is no longer center-right. In his first term, the President probably heard the word “no” more than a two year old. Thanks to Speaker Boehner, he will probably hear it more than he wants to in his second. You can’t possibly feel that Obama’s ideas are all counter-productive. The Republican party is a mess. They better stop the bleeding soon; as it appears now, it will be at least untill 2020 before they can field a candidate to run to succeed a one term President Clinton. At least.
This is another of those topics that should be discussed two or three times a day. The man has definitely fallen for his own press notices! He acts like a person who had a real mandate, like a 90 to 10% vote. Well, he didn’t get that- not even close. The nation is pretty evenly divided and it’s about time he realizes it. We (the opposition) NEED to say HELL NO loudly, clearly, and often. Now who is going to tell the republicans this?
@John: Good insights. The landslide you refer to was a 51% majority of the popular vote. It was significant and decisive in the electoral college, but to term a 4% margin as a landslide is not altogether different than the hyperbole used by local weathermen to describe run of the mill winter snow storms as major catastrophic events. Having had seven of them, I can attest that some two year olds need to hear “no” more than others! The President would likely find more cooperation in Congress if he were less of a “problem child”, particularly in the coming term. I am a little hard pressed to find points of agreement with the President’s major initiatives and policy directions, I guess the draw downs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and while a few of his ideas might be productive, they might not be constitutionally appropriate to the Federal level of government. The Republicans have the same issues, hence the schism in the party. You might be right about Clinton, if her health holds up, and all other circumstances remain stable. On the other hand, if she doesn’t run, I see no rising stars as I do in the GOP. Presidential elections seem to increasingly be personality contests and with low information voters issues take a back seat. The 2014 mid term election will give a better idea of where the nation is as far as left/right etc.
@AJ: I agree that the GOP tends to get painted as obstructionist, but it seems to me as though the reason particularly the Tea Party/ Conservative branch of the party feels the need to so frequently say “Hell no!” is the chasm between what the President proposes and the positions which these representatives were elected to maintain. As in other times of our history, there is increasingly two very different visions for the future, and there is likely to be little agreement until one or the other prevails. There’s little doubt that the President will continue to be told “no” of some of his more radical agendas in these unstable times, the question is whether he’ll hear it.
Right on the money Kevin. You’ve nailed it with your commentary.