NO SENSE OF IRONY.

The New York Times gives a Vermont historian an opportunity to tut-tut about the Cult of the Presidency.

The focus on a single leader — on the construction of a cult of personality — would have incensed the men and women who sacrificed so much to create a new nation. As Capt. Joseph Bloomfield explained to a company of New Jersey troops preparing to fight in the Revolutionary War, the American states had “entered a new era of politics.” He warned the soldiers to be on guard against the rise of an “aspiring Demagogue, possessed of popular talents and shining qualities, a Julius Caesar, or an Oliver Cromwell” who “will lay violent hands on the government and sacrifice the liberties of his country.”

That's precious coming from the Times, otherwise known as an Institutional Cheerleader for a Strong Presidency, particularly if it's a Democrat.  Like this.  "What Middle-Class Families Want Politicians to Know."  More "think of us as your children."

Perhaps the editorial writers at the Times ought understand that we do not consent to be ruled.  Particularly when that governing class governs badly.

Of course, right now we have a peculiar situation in which celebrating the independence of America and the achievements of Americans is seen as not just political, but partisan, because a whole wing of American politics right now is dedicated to the proposition that all men are not created equal; that the clerisy, the lettered, those with Ivy-League degrees and the right family connections, form a distinct and natural aristocracy that should by rights not just govern, but rule.

So it's no wonder that they object to this Independence Day parade; Trump's election and his surprising success as president challenge their most deeply-held belief.

It represents a successful challenge to their presumptions of superiority and the right to rule. And, like all aristocracies, in Jefferson's words, they "fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes."

It might be salutary for Times columnists to recognize the emergence that Mr Breen documented during Independence.

Filling the vacuum left by the retreat of British officials to the security of major port cities, the members of local committees — most of them elected by their neighbors — gathered weapons and enforced a boycott against imported goods. Their efforts on the local level helped mobilize broad support for a system of government based on the will of the people.

Don't bet on it. "The New York Times editorial board hasn't endorsed a Republican for president in sixty-three years and the safest bet in America is that they won't break that streak next year."