Connect with us

Published

on

Whether a glass is half full or half empty is a matter of perspective. The same can be said about the half of Americans who oppose the idea of allowing presidents to rule unilaterallyan exercise of monarchical power favored by only a fifth of us. I like to look on the bright side, so I take it as a win that those opposing unrestrained executive power far outnumber those who favor it. Still, it would be better if, in a republic established two and a half centuries ago, more than half the population would commit to the proposition that turning the country into a dictatorship would be bad.

The Rattler is a weekly newsletter from J.D. Tuccille. If you care about government overreach and tangible threats to everyday liberty, this is for you. Email(Required) EmailThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Submit

Δ Opponents of Dictatorship Outnumber Supporters

“About half of the public think it would be a bad idea if the next president is able to act on important policy issues without the approval of Congress or the courts,” the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research reports of the results of a survey of 1,282 adults conducted March 21-25. “Only 21% think it would be a good thing, and about 30% think it’s neither good nor bad.”

In the poll, 48 percent overall oppose unilateral presidential rule, including 58 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of Republicans. The 21 percent favoring the idea include 17 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of Republicans. Support for unrestrained executive power rises to 39 percent among Democrats in the case of a Biden win in November, and to 57 percent of Republicans if Trump wins.

Interestingly, the AP-NORC results are nearly identical to those found by the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics in 2021. At the time, pollsters reported “roughly 2 in 10 Trump and Biden voters strongly agree it would be better if a ‘President could take needed actions without being constrained by Congress or courts.'” Among Biden voters, 22 percent strongly agreed with the idea, compared to 19 percent of Trump voters (over 40 percent of both at least “somewhat agreed” with the idea of an unrestrained presidency).

In 2020, the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group noted: “Over three annual surveys, about 24 percent of Americans say that a ‘strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress and elections’ is a good way to govern a country.”

The good news here is that surveys find a pretty consistent minority of only one-fifth to one-quarter of Americans favor throwing off this whole separation of powers thing in favor of dictatorship. It’s a fraction of the population that seems firm in its batty beliefs but doesn’t appear to be growing.

The bad news is that the citizens of a 250-year-old democratic republic are so lukewarm about the country’s system of government that only about half of them can summon up opposition to the idea of unilateral rule. That almost a third of survey respondents think unilateral presidential rule is “neither good nor bad” isn’t a ringing endorsement of the system. Then again, most don’t think the system works. The System Isn’t Working if My Side Isn’t Winning

“About half of the public, regardless of party identification, say the system of checks and balances dividing power among the president, Congress, and the courts is not working well these days,” adds AP-NORC. Only around one in ten say it is working extremely or very well.

That reflects frustration with institutions that are in the hands of political opponents. Among Republicans, 46 percent say the presidency has too much power (16 percent of Democrats agree), while 58 percent say federal agencies (currently under the control of Democratic President Joe Biden) have too much power (20 percent of Democrats agree). Fifty-eight percent of Democrats think the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, has too much power (25 percent of Republicans agree). At 37 percent and 38 percent respectively, nearly identical numbers of Democrats and Republicans say the divided Congress is too powerful.

In January, Gallup reported that “a new low of 28% of U.S. adults are satisfied with the way democracy is working in the country.”

That matches a separate AP-NORC report, published April 3, that “only 3 in 10 think democracy in the United States is functioning well, while about half believe it is a poorly functioning democracy.”

“Typically, partisans have been more satisfied with the way democracy is working when a president from their preferred party has been in office,” Gallup added.

It’s not unreasonable to interpret such polling results as evidence that too many Americans think the system is working well only when it’s under the control of their political faction. Unless they can jam their preferred laws and policies down the throats of neighbors with different ideas, they call the system a failure and look for alternatives. Fortunately, only a small minority are willing to go so far as to support dumping the whole system in favor of an actual dictatorship by their chosen el jefe. Unfortunately, the presidency is creeping in the direction of satisfying that minority. The Presidency Is Already Almost an Elective Monarchy

“Over the past several decades, as our politics took on a quasi-?religious fervor, we’ve been running a dangerous experiment: concentrating vast new powers in the executive branch, making ‘the most powerful office in the world’ even more powerful,” Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute and author of The Cult of the Presidency, wrote for Reason’s May issue. “Fundamental questions of governance that used to be left to Congress, the states, or the people are now settled, winner-take-all, by whichever party manages to seize the presidency.”

Only a small minority of Americans actually favor turning the presidency into an elective monarchy, but we’re all getting it anyway. That’s because many people ask far too much of a government that was originally designed to be limited in its role and hobbled by checks and balances. As the most recognizable face of that government, they expect the president to fulfill unreasonable expectationsand grant ever-greater power to the position so current officeholders can try.

“Recent presidents have deployed their enhanced powers to impose forced settlements on highly contested, morally charged issues on which Americans should be free to disagree,” notes Healy.

A lot of our political discourse focuses on the specific flaws of the individuals who vie for high office, as if ridding ourselves of Orange Mussolini or Bumbling Brandon will resolve America’s political problems. But the danger lies less in the candidates than in voters who use politicians as vehicles for their awful expectations and frankly authoritarian agendas.

It’s encouraging that a majority of Americans don’t want to live under a dictatorship. If only they’d stop acting in ways that are bound to bring one about.

Continue Reading

Politics

Why Boris’s best mate is off to Reform

Published

on

By

Why Boris's best mate is off to Reform

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈       

Former Conservative chairman and friend of Boris Johnson – Sir Jake Berry – is defecting to Reform UK, causing more problems for Tory leader Kemi Badenoch.

On today’s episode, Sky News’ Sam Coates and Politico’s Anne McElvoy discuss if his defection will divide parts of Reform policy.

Elsewhere, the Anglo-French summit gets under way, with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer hoping to announce a migration deal with French President Emmanuel Macron to deter small boat crossings.

Plus, chatter around Whitehall that No10 are considering a pre-summer reshuffle, but will it have any value?

Continue Reading

US

Donald Trump praises Liberian president’s English – the country’s official language

Published

on

By

Donald Trump praises Liberian president's English - the country's official language

Donald Trump has praised the Liberian president’s command of English – the West African country’s official language.

The US president reacted with visible surprise to Joseph Boakai’s English-speaking skills during a White House meeting with leaders from the region on Wednesday.

After the Liberian president finished his brief remarks, Mr Trump told him he speaks “such good English” and asked: “Where did you learn to speak so beautifully?”

Mr Trump seemed surprised when Mr Boakai laughed and responded he learned in Liberia.

The US president said: “It’s beautiful English.

“I have people at this table who can’t speak nearly as well.”

Mr Boakai did not tell Mr Trump that English is the official language of Liberia.

The country was founded in 1822 with the aim of relocating freed African slaves and freeborn black citizens from the US.

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

Mr Trump promised the leaders of Liberia, Senegal, Gabon, Mauritania and Guinea-Bissau a pivot from aid to trade at the surprise meeting.

He described the countries as “all very vibrant places with very valuable land, great minerals, and great oil deposits, and wonderful people”.

Read more from Sky News:
Gaza permanent ceasefire ‘questionable’, says Israeli official
Four dead and ‘many’ kidnapped after Houthi rebels sink ship

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Later asked by a reporter if he’ll visit the continent, Mr Trump said, “At some point, I would like to go to Africa.”

But he added that he’d “have to see what the schedule looks like”.

Trump’s predecessor, President Joe Biden, promised to go to Africa in 2023, but only fulfilled the commitment by visiting Angola in December 2024, just weeks before he left office.

Continue Reading

US

Gaza permanent ceasefire ‘questionable’, says Israeli government

Published

on

By

Gaza permanent ceasefire 'questionable', says Israeli government

The Israeli government believes the chances of achieving a permanent ceasefire in Gaza are “questionable”.

The pessimistic assessment, in a top-level Israeli government briefing given to Sky News, comes as the Israeli Prime Minister prepares to leave Washington DC after a four-day visit which had begun with the expectation of a ceasefire announcement.

Benjamin Netanyahu will leave the US later today with the prospect of even a temporary 60-day ceasefire looking extremely unlikely this week.

Within “a week, two weeks – not a day” is how it was framed in the background briefing late on Wednesday.

Crucially, though, on the chances of the ceasefire lasting beyond 60 days, the framing from the briefing was even less optimistic: “We will begin negotiations on a permanent settlement. But we achieve it? It’s questionable, but Hamas will not be there.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Netanyahu arrives in US for ceasefire talks

Sky News has spoken to several Israeli officials at the top level of the government. None will be drawn on any of the details of the negotiations over concerns that public disclosure could jeopardise their chances of success.

But I have been given a very clear understanding of Mr Netanyahu’s thinking.

More on Israel

The Israeli position is that a permanent ceasefire (beyond the initial 60 days, which itself is yet to be agreed) is only possible if Hamas lays down its arms. “If they don’t, we’ll proceed [with the war],” said a source.

The major sticking point in the talks between Hamas and Israel is the status of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) inside Gaza during the 60-day ceasefire and beyond, should it last longer.

The latest Israeli proposal, passed to Hamas last week, included a map showing the proposed IDF presence inside Gaza during the ceasefire.

Read more: What is the possible Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal?

Israeli military vehicles stand near the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel.
Pic: Reuters
Image:
Pic: Reuters

This was rejected by Hamas and by Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who reportedly told the Israelis that the redeployment map “looks like a Smotrich plan”, a reference to the extreme-right Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich.

My briefing of Mr Netanyahu’s position is that he has not shifted in terms of Israel’s central stated war aims. The return of the hostages and eliminating Hamas are the key objectives.

But in a hint of how hard it will be to reconcile the differences, it was clear from my briefing that no permanent ceasefire is possible in the Israeli government’s view without the complete removal of Hamas as a political and military entity.

Hamas is not likely to negotiate its way to oblivion.

On the status of the Israeli military inside Gaza, a senior Israeli official told Sky News: “We would want IDF in every square metre of Gaza, and then hand it over to someone.”

Smoke rises in Gaza after an explosion, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border.
Pic: Reuters
Image:
Pic: Reuters

It was clear to me that Mr Netanyahu wants his stated position to be that his government has no territorial ambition for Gaza.

One quote to come from my briefing, which I am only able to attribute to a senior Israeli official, says: “[We] don’t want to govern Gaza… don’t want to govern, but the first thing is, you have to defeat Hamas.”

Another clear indication of Mr Netanyahu’s position – a quote from the briefing, attributable only to a senior Israeli official: “You cannot have victory if you don’t clear out all the fighting forces.

“You have to go into every square inch unless you are not serious about victory. I am. We are going to defeat them. Those who do not disarm will die. Those who disarm will have a life.”

On the future of Gaza, it’s clear from my briefings that Mr Netanyahu continues to rule out the possibility of a two-state solution “for the foreseeable future”.

The Israeli government assessment is that the Palestinians are not going to have a state “as long as they cling to that idea of destroying our state”.

Read more:
UN Special Rapporteur criticises Israel
Why Netanyahu only wants a 60-day ceasefire
Trump applying ‘heavy pressure’ on Netanyahu

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

On the most controversial aspect of the Gaza conflict – the movement of the population – the briefing revealed that Mr Netanyahu’s view is that 60% of Palestinians would “choose to leave” but that Israel would allow them to return once Hamas had been eliminated.

“It’s not forcible eviction, it’s not permanent eviction,” a senior Israeli official said.

Critics of Israel’s war in Gaza say that any removal of Palestinians from Gaza, even if given the appearance of being “voluntary”, is in fact anything but, because the strip has been so comprehensively flattened.

Reacting to Israeli Defence Minister Katz’s recent statement revealing a plan to move Palestinians into a “humanitarian city” in southern Gaza, and not let them out of that area, the official wouldn’t be drawn, except to say: “As a permanent arrangement? Of course not.”

Continue Reading

Trending