• About
  • Contact
  • Staff

Law & Liberty

A Project of Liberty Fund

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Liberty Law Forum
  • Podcasts
  • Book Reviews

November 1, 2012|Barack Obama, Executive Power, Limited Government, Mitt Romney

Speaking Prudence to Power

by Greg Weiner|1 Comment

“The choice you make this November,” implored Governor Mitt Romney in a recent address in Iowa, “will shape great things, historic things, and those things will determine the most intimate and important aspects of every American life and every American family.”

To this we may respond as the kids would: “Really?”

Romney’s claim of the high—make that “limitless”—stakes in this election suggests one of two conclusions.  Either it is preposterous or democracy is diseased.  “Both” may be the likely answer, but in any event, if Romney believes his own statement, he ought to be waging a full-throated campaign against its premise.  It cannot possibly be healthy for a political community for “the most intimate and important aspects” of everyone’s lives to be at stake in an election.  Nor, for the record, are they in this one.  That Romney accepts the premise with apparent satisfaction rather than sounding the alarm it justifies is evidence of what I recently described in this space as the institutional narcissism of the Presidency and its concomitant cause: power.

Romney is hardly alone here.  The Obama camp has consistently exaggerated the importance of this election.  So have media organizations, such as Dan Rather’s claim that this election “may prove to be the most important in at least half a century.” And other observers: A recent solicitation from the Claremont Institute, for example, spoke portentously of “the most consequential election of the modern age.”  Virtually every party to this campaign—from candidates to pundits—shares an interest in inflating its importance.

Indeed, one is hard-pressed to recall a single presidential election that has not been described as historic in scope. There are myriad reasons for this inflationary tendency.  One neither motivates voters by describing an election as ordinary nor attracts viewers or readers by placing the news in calm perspective.  And there is, of course, no escaping the fact that elections have consequences, often considerable ones.

But no serious person can possibly believe the intimate contours of every citizen’s life will be indelibly shaped by the next President.  Nor can serious people want that to be the case.  We can be seriously sure, however, that the next President—whether Obama or Romney—will encourage that perception, and Bertrand de Jouvenel knows why: power.

Bertrand de Jouvenel’s On Power

The candidates would surely reject the claim that they are motivated by power, but the premise wields considerable predictive power, which is to say Presidents and aspirants to the White House display a suspiciously consistent tendency to describe the office in terms conducive to enhancing their power.  Thus Woodrow Wilson, whose vision of the Presidency is virtually unchallenged in contemporary politics: “The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can.”  During his campaign for the White House, John F. Kennedy made this staggering claim about the President: “[U]pon him alone converge all the needs and aspirations of all parts of the country, all departments of the government, all nations of the world.”  This is not a formula for limited Presidential power, nor is Romney’s claim that our intimate lives are up for grabs on November 6.

The underlying problem is the conflation of politics with the raw exercise of power.  Presidents are routinely judged by the impact they purport to have on people’s lives, and specifically by the extent to which they cause matters to be different than they were before, a standard I have elsewhere formulated as “s=c/t”: Success equals change divided by time.  The problem is that the standard—whose use by historians in evaluating presidential legacies is especially notorious—leaves little room for mere governance and none at all for what Aristotle and Burke called the seminal political virtue: prudence.  Indeed, the last President to talk seriously about prudence—the much maligned George H.W. Bush—was lampooned because of it.

None of this is to say no change is needed now.  Both candidates are predictably promising it.  But it may be worth reviewing the evidence that change is necessary, namely that the economy has been sluggish and the world remains a dangerous place.  Both of these factors are substantially beyond Presidential control, a fact candidates conspire to conceal.  We might consider the possibility that especially amid global economic storms, the business cycle is likely to come around at its own speed, with credit for it lamely accorded to whichever President bears the good fortune to be living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when it happens.  Yet such thoughts are threatening to voters who seek all forms of personal security from politics and from political leaders who seek the power to provide it.

That so much power now rests in the hands of the President also goes a considerable distance toward explaining the polarization that has provoked the wringing of so many hands in recent years.  The issue is not merely that Americans are closely divided on intense issues.  To some extent they are, but they are also polarized—indeed, Presidents of both parties are routinely not merely criticized but despised—because so much power is at stake.

Let us perish this thought: The possibility exists that, in historical terms, this is a relatively ordinary election—important to be sure, but little more earthshaking than any other.  That thesis is tied to the prediction—heard here first—that the earth will remain on its axis the morning of November 7 regardless of what happens the night before.  The alternate claim—that “the most intimate and important aspects of every American life and every American family” are at risk because of an election—is far more troubling.

Greg Weiner

Greg Weiner is a contributing editor of Law and Liberty.

About the Author

Cass Sunstein and the Originalist Case for Commercial Speech Protection
More on the Original Meaning of Commercial Speech Protection

Recent Popular Posts

  • Popular
  • Today Week Month All
  • Schlesinger, Warts and All January 30, 2018
  • The President's Non-enforcement Power May 7, 2014
  • The Beat Generation and The Decline of the West January 30, 2018
  • Trump Should Be Assessed Politically, Not Psychologically January 29, 2018
  • Enabling Congress to Control the Administrative State January 30, 2018
Ajax spinner

Related Posts

Related

Comments

  1. Philip says

    November 1, 2012 at 9:27 am

    Thanks for this. Given the ubiquity of the opposite message, yours must repeated as often as possible.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Book Reviews

Socrates on Courage, Self-Sacrifice, and the Divine

by Ariel Helfer

Robert Bartlett brings to life Plato’s juxtaposition of Socrates and Protagoras, who may have been Socrates’ most impressive opponent.

Read More

J.Q. Adams, Diarist

by Diana Schaub

He saw “the hideous reality of the slave ascendency in the Government of this Union” and set about resisting it.

Read More

Podcasts

Debating the Thorniest Issues: A Conversation with Peter Schuck

A discussion with Peter H. Schuck

Debating Poverty, Immigration, Racial Preferences, Campaign Finance, and Religious Freedom with Peter Schuck, author of One Nation Undecided.

Read More

Walker Percy in the Ruins: A Conversation with Brian Smith

A discussion with Brian A. Smith

Why we need Walker Percy’s diagnosis of what ails the contemporary soul.

Read More

Luther's Rebellion: A Conversation with Brad Gregory

A discussion with Brad S. Gregory

Martin Luther launched a religious revolution that shaped the modern world in ways that he never intended.

Read More

The Great Libertarian versus Conservative Debate: A Conversation with Nathan Schlueter and Nikolai Wenzel

A discussion with Nathan W. Schlueter

What principles really divide libertarians and conservatives?

Read More

Recent Posts

  • The Trump Administration’s Accomplishments—In Spite of the Deep State

    Mike Lofgren argues that the Deep State controls everything, but he attributes too much to malice, and not enough to ignorance and self-interest.
    by Alexandra Hudson

  • President Washington: A Prudent Guardian of State Secrets

    In 1796, in the midst of the donnybrook over the Jay Treaty, President Washington asserted what we now call “executive privilege .”
    by Richard Samuelson

  • The Breaking Point

    It would have been a welcome surprise for Trump to break with Woodrow Wilson’s precedent of making the SOTU a spoken address to the Congress.
    by Richard M. Reinsch II

  • Competition Can Improve on Apparent Market Failure

    Imperfect markets don't mean that regulation is the answer; competition often does a better job than bureaucracy at improving outcomes.
    by John O. McGinnis

  • Enabling Congress to Control the Administrative State

    Moderating the power of the administrative state means giving power back to Congress and eliminating judicial deference.
    by Mike Rappaport

Blogroll

  • Acton PowerBlog
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Cato@Liberty
  • Claremont
  • Congress Shall Make No Law
  • EconLog
  • Fed Soc Blog
  • First Things
  • Hoover
  • ISI First Principles Journal
  • Legal Theory Blog
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Pacific Legal Liberty Blog
  • Point of Law
  • Power Line
  • Professor Bainbridge
  • Ricochet
  • Right Reason
  • Spengler
  • The American
  • The Beacon Blog
  • The Foundry
  • The Originalism Blog
  • The Public Discourse
  • University Bookman
  • Via Meadia
  • Volokh

Archives

  • All Posts & Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Forum
  • Liberty Law Blog
  • Liberty Law Talk

About

Law and Liberty’s focus is on the content, status, and development of law in the context of republican and limited government and the ways that liberty and law and law and liberty mutually reinforce the other. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law and Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Archive

Apple App Store
Google Play Store

© 2018 Liberty Fund, Inc.

Subscribe
Get Law and Liberty's latest content delivered to you daily
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
No thanks