Glenn "Insta Pundit" Reynolds summarizes what has gone wrong.  "Being law-abiding for its own sake is a traditional part of bourgeois culture, and our ruling class has lately treated the bourgeoisie with contempt as well. Which raises the risk that this contempt will be returned."

Question the privilege of the nomenklatura, and their mascots.

Why are they allowed to do things that we’re not allowed to do?

It's beginning to dawn on longtime Democrat insider Robert B. Reich.
That most Americans don’t particularly like Trump is irrelevant. As one Midwesterner told me a few weeks ago, “He may be a jerk, but he’s our jerk.”

By the same token, in this era of anti-politics, any candidate who appears to be the political establishment is at a strong disadvantage. This may be Hillary Clinton’s biggest handicap.

The old politics featured carefully crafted speeches and policy proposals calculated to appeal to particular constituencies. In this sense, Mrs. Clinton’s proposals and speeches are almost flawless.

But in the new era of anti-politics Americans are skeptical of well-crafted speeches and detailed policy proposals. They prefer authenticity. They want their candidates unscripted and unfiltered.
I concur in part, and wish to extend in part.

Yes, the usual chin-pullers with their usual patter song (at-the-end-of-the-day-bipartisan-compromise-consensus-process-comprehensive-reform: perhaps Gilbert and Sullivan could set it to music) are so last campaign.

More to the point, though, all that expertise has failed.

But we're not quite to the resolution envisioned by George Will.  Imagine a modest Inaugural Address.
My tribute will be to delay [attending the traditional inauguration day brunch with Congressional leaders] for the 10 minutes or so it will take to sign a stack of executive orders nullifying most executive orders issued by my predecessor. He used them to wield executive power to institute policies and alter laws that properly should be initiated by Congress.

This will be enough business for Day One of my first 100 days. And I promise you this: On the 100th day of my administration, America will be . . . pretty much indistinguishable from what it is today. Would you, my over-excited countrymen, really want it any other way? Would you really want to live in a nation that can be substantially changed in a matter of a few months by a hyperactive government?
Mr Will has been on record as questioning the overblown cult of the presidency previously.  He doesn't disappoint.
For efficiency, and to minimize unnecessary folderol, I am going to take a minute right now to deliver my first and last State of the Union address. It is this one sentence: Things are much better than they once were — slavery? gone; the Oregon Trail? replaced by the Interstate Highway System — but things could be better.

There. Wasn’t that less disagreeable than the annual midwinter prime-time pep rally that presidents stage because of the Constitution’s blurry mandate that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress information” about the country’s condition? How quaint. As though Congress is interested in information.

After today’s lunch, Congress should try nibbling at the edges of our problems, many of which Congress created to please you, the clamorous people. To you I say: We have nothing to fear but your insufficient fear of what has been done on your behalf and at your behest.
Plus a cautionary peroration.
If you want the United States to be Puerto Rico writ large — or, even worse, Illinois — just stay the course you are on. In words Lincoln spoke at his first inauguration, the nation’s fate is “in your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine.”
The real inaugural address, no matter who gives it, is likely to be less edifying, less clarifying, and less refreshing.

No comments: