Obama as a Tyrant

Tyrannos to the Ancient Greeks was someone who had absolute political power. It did not mean, as does our modern definition of tyrant, someone who rules in a cruel and unjust manner. The Greeks attached no ethical or moral meaning to the term as we do today. The term was first used to describe the reign of Peisistratus and his two sons during the later half of the 6th century BC. He took advantage of the good economic times and had many public works built, began a series of festivals, and initiated what would be the Olympic Games. These aren't exactly actions of the modern tyrant; however he did have absolute power. Eventually Lord Acton's famous quote, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," transformed the government. An exiled leader, Clieisthenes, returned to Athens, took power, and began to create a demokratia or democracy.

So how is Barack Obama a tyrant? While not exactly a tyrant in either the Ancient Greek or modern definition of the term he does exhibit tyrannical tendencies. Answering this questions requires an examination of two prerequisite questions: What are his motives/policies? How does he wield the power he has?

Talk of policy is tainted by politics but if Obama's administration is evaluated as a whole RealClearPolitics poll composites show that Obama's Job Approval as even with three out of four polls in the past 10 days being unfavoraaable of the President. In addition, The RCP composite for "Direction of the Country" shows only 31.7% of Americans approve while 58.2% believe the nation is on the wrong track. These numbers could partially be explained by Congress, as their approval rating is dismal, but the President is the policy leader and if the public feels the country is headed down the wrong path he has to assume responsibility and not just blame everyone else.

Obama's signature policy is the Affordable Care Act, so let's look at that in some detail. An argument could be made that the ACA is like the public works projects under Peisistratus; however, while the public overwhelmingly embraced the actions of the Greek tyrannus, polls have consistently showed that no more than half, and a recent one only about one-third, of Americans approve of Obamacare. This is not to argue that healthcare reform is not needed but a one thousand page law that has grown to nearly 3000 pages and largely passed by Congress without any representative reading it does not inspire confidence.

When looked at closely, whether it is healthcare, gun control, energy issues, or job creation, Obama has responded from a purely ideological position with little forethought or concern for the overall will of the people. In this sense his policies are tyrannical in a modern sense of the term because he, unlike Peisistratus, is not basing decisions upon the will of the majority.

Maybe more disturbing is the subtle and covert methods used by Obama to make things happen. Yes, Republicans (Richard Nixon being a good example) did similar things but in 2013 Barack Obama is president. More than any president since FDR, Obama subservients ethics in favor of power. In an Alinsky-esque way power to Obama allows for political action which then emerges in policy, even if it is policy unpopular or lacking a broad base of support. When checks and balances are not an issue then Obama can do things through executive order, new departmental regulations, or the controversial method of "executive actions," and the process of governing becomes easy. While Obama has used the power of executive order about the same number of times as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, he has exceeded them in expanding executive department regulations and issuing what are called "executive actions."

An executive order has the backing of law behind it. For example, Executive Order 9066 was a law requiring all people of Japanese decent living in the United States (remember Hawaii was not a state yet) to relocate to an internment camp during World War Two. Changes in departmental regulations must follow the intent of the law creating that department and usually deal with procedures and processes within that department. Executive actions have sometimes been called executive directives and are not binding by law. They are more like requests that might very well disappear because they usually require some action of Congress, everything from outright approval to providing funding. As one source put it, "actions are like a presidential wish list." Even being a wish list, the power of and authority of the President has weight and influence whether it be with Congress or public opinion, so the issuing of executive actions is a covert method of implementing policy.

So do we have Tyrannus Obamus? In my opinion, yes. The President's actions and policies are not based on public demand, and the tactics used are often times excessive, bordering on dictatorial in the spirit of FDR. Whether or not the current scandals can or will be traced to the White House doesn't really matter. Obama has clearly chosen to largely ignore the issue much like a tyrant would. If any are connected to the administration then there are serious misuses of power going on. And if not, instead of "cleaning house" and dealing with the IRS, Justice Department, FBI, or State Department as rogue institutions, Obama has bent over backwards to prop up many (Holder being a key one) who should have resigned or have been fired.

Tyrants don't have to be evil and cruel, but if they undermine the principles of this country, whether Republican or Democrat, they should be dealt with.

Posted with Blogsy