5 ms·

No matter who wins, I expect presidential powers to continue to expand. Trump does it with more flair, but Obama also did it.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
It’s a total difference of kind with Trump. I agree with you this keeps increasing over time, but Trump’s abuse of power is categorically unlike any president in almost a hundred years. The most recent comparable thing to me is probably FDR’s executive order for Japanese internment camps. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066
bregma 6y ago
Obama did it with more flair. Trump does it with more bluster. GW Bush did it with more stumbling. Clinton did it with interns [0]. Fact is it's a monotonic increasing function you can trace back as far as Roosevelt, maybe even Lincoln. [0] This may have veered off-topic.
- minerjoe 6y ago
  Not sure why this is dead? I found it rather true.
  - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
    "Presidents generally support expanding executive powers" is true, but that doesn't mean that all presidents pushed to expand powers in the same way and to the same degree. "Obama did it with more flair, Bush did it with more stumbling" reduces these differences to mere aesthetics. More generally, "both sides are bad" is essentially the cynic's version of "both sides are valid," and should be treated with a similarly skeptical eye. False equivalence that gets you to nod your head in agreement is still false equivalence.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
Obama was stuck with a Congress that wouldn't do its job because it was obsessed with sabotaging everything.
- jfengel 6y ago
  And so with Biden, should he win. Even a wave election won't produce a filibuster-proof majority. And as with Obama, they will filibuster every attempt at legislation, so that they can cite it as proof that the Congress doesn't work so elect them.
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    It's becoming pretty clear they're going to get rid of the filibuster if the Democrats take the Senate - probably rightly so.
    - jfengel 6y ago
      At one time I might have defended the practice, since some things are important enough that they should require supermajorities. But there's already a high bar to clear, in that legislation has to pass the House and the Senate and the President. That alone guarantees gridlock more often than not. So I won't be sad to see it go. It's already gone in the one case I felt it was appropriate, for lifetime nominations to the Supreme Court, an enormous amount of power that doesn't require the input of the House.
- toast0 6y ago
  Congress's job is to sabotage everything. It's called checks and balances. Both parties since time forever have been expanding presidential powers because convincing congress to do things is hard, but convincing congress to undo things is hard. If you're going to chastize Presidents for using executive actions for things that should probably be done by Congress, you should really chastize all of them. Otherwise, you're really just chastizing Presidents for taking actions that you don't like, but blaming the process instead of the actions.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

It’s a total difference of kind with Trump. I agree with you this keeps increasing over time, but Trump’s abuse of power is categorically unlike any president in almost a hundred years. The most recent comparable thing to me is probably FDR’s executive order for Japanese internment camps. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

bregma 6y ago

Obama did it with more flair. Trump does it with more bluster. GW Bush did it with more stumbling. Clinton did it with interns [0]. Fact is it's a monotonic increasing function you can trace back as far as Roosevelt, maybe even Lincoln. [0] This may have veered off-topic.

minerjoe 6y ago
Not sure why this is dead? I found it rather true.
- chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  "Presidents generally support expanding executive powers" is true, but that doesn't mean that all presidents pushed to expand powers in the same way and to the same degree. "Obama did it with more flair, Bush did it with more stumbling" reduces these differences to mere aesthetics. More generally, "both sides are bad" is essentially the cynic's version of "both sides are valid," and should be treated with a similarly skeptical eye. False equivalence that gets you to nod your head in agreement is still false equivalence.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

Obama was stuck with a Congress that wouldn't do its job because it was obsessed with sabotaging everything.

jfengel 6y ago
And so with Biden, should he win. Even a wave election won't produce a filibuster-proof majority. And as with Obama, they will filibuster every attempt at legislation, so that they can cite it as proof that the Congress doesn't work so elect them.
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  It's becoming pretty clear they're going to get rid of the filibuster if the Democrats take the Senate - probably rightly so.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    At one time I might have defended the practice, since some things are important enough that they should require supermajorities. But there's already a high bar to clear, in that legislation has to pass the House and the Senate and the President. That alone guarantees gridlock more often than not. So I won't be sad to see it go. It's already gone in the one case I felt it was appropriate, for lifetime nominations to the Supreme Court, an enormous amount of power that doesn't require the input of the House.
toast0 6y ago
Congress's job is to sabotage everything. It's called checks and balances. Both parties since time forever have been expanding presidential powers because convincing congress to do things is hard, but convincing congress to undo things is hard. If you're going to chastize Presidents for using executive actions for things that should probably be done by Congress, you should really chastize all of them. Otherwise, you're really just chastizing Presidents for taking actions that you don't like, but blaming the process instead of the actions.