In the biography box at the end of Ted Van Dyk's recent essay "Obama Needs to 'Reset' His Presidency," one finds this:
Mr. Van Dyk was Vice President Hubert Humphrey's assistant in the Johnson White House and active in national Democratic politics over 40 years.
Those, I believe, are some fairly hefty Democratic Party credentials. However, because Mr. Van Dyk's essay appeared in the Wall Street Journal, a relatively conservative publication, one can be certain he will be dismissed summarily. And that's just too bad, because Mr. Van Dyk gets it exactly right. And this from a man who supports Mr. Obama.
Mr. Van Dyk will be ignored, I suspect, by the White House and by the Democratic Party, but they ignore him to their own peril. He IS right.
Flatly. Plainly. Simply. Right.
2 comments:
Mr. Van Dyk is spot-on. The problem is that Mr. Obama is, in fact, a weak President. Unlike Reagan, Bush, Johnson and others, he has yet to realize the constitutional import of separation of powers. The founders did not want the three branches to be one big happy family. They wanted gridlock to an extent, called "checks and balances" in civics parlance. In truth, Mr. Obama is lightweight and the heavyweights in Congress are running the show.
From an historical perspective, this is nothing new. At various times, the individual branches of government try to assert themselves and seize ever larger chunks of power at the expense of the other branches. That's why I've never thought federal legislators make good Presidents. They're stuck on Capitol Hill.
Cheers.
R.,
Is being "stuck on Capitol Hill" a bit like being "stuck on stupid"? Just wondering.
Post a Comment