Quite an admission from The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb today:
Pam Hess, the UPI reporter who gave us this extremely moving and persuasive glimpse of the liberal case for the war in Iraq, asked if timetables for withdrawal "somehow infringe on the president's powers as commander in chief?" Mitchell's less than persuasive answer: "Congress is a coequal branch of government...the framers did not want to have one branch in charge of the government."
True enough, but they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war. So no, the Constitution does not put Congress on an equal footing with the executive in matters of national security.
Normally I'd turn to the Federalist Papers to undermine such an absurd statement, but because Goldfarb actually used attempted to use the Federalist to support his claims, Glenn Greenwald has already done that work for me.
So apparently, the American Founders risked their lives and fortunes in order to wage war against Great Britain and declare independence from the King -- all in order to vest "near dictatorial power" in the American President in all matters of foreign policy and national security... Until the Bill Kristols and John Yoos and other authoritarians of that strain entered the political mainstream, I never heard of prominent Americans who describe the power that they want to vest in our political leaders as "near dictatorial."...One of the principal purposes of the Federalist Papers -- which Goldfarb obscenely cites as though it supports his twisted views of dictatorial omnipotence in America -- was to assuage widespread concerns (or, as Scalia put it, "mistrust") that the President would be, in essence, a new British King. That fear was not eliminated or even diminished, but instead was particularly pronounced, with regard to the President's role as "Commander-in-Chief," which is why there are so many safeguards in the form of Congressional powers designed to limit that role. All of this is excruciatingly basic and obvious, really not much beyond what seventh grade civics students are taught about what distinguishes a Republic from a "dictatorship."
What the actual Americans who founded the country feared (as opposed to "hoped for and craved") was that the President would wield "near dictatorial power." Anyone with doubts should simply read Article II -- defining the powers of the President -- and see how limited those powers are. Even the glorious sounding power of "Commander-in-Chief" is, as Scalia noted, nothing more than the power, when Congress decides to fund a military and when it authorizes the use of military force, to act as top General directing troop movements and the like. In all other respects, those powers are checked, regulated and limited by the people through their Congress.
I'm glad that Greenwald has done the work necessary to expose the ridiculousness of this claim, but in the end I'm not entirely sure it was necessary. Aside from this bizarre segment of the neo-conservative movement, is there really anyone in America who honestly believes that the president either can or should have "near dictatorial powers"? By the time most Americans have finished elementary school they know enough to know that dictators is something other people - particularly those with whom we go to war - have.
And yet somehow, it is conservatives who are now arguing it should be so. Bizarre. I can't help but wonder... how would they react should a President Obama, Clinton, or Edwards take them up on their sweeping claims?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
