Principles and intellectual consistency are not just a river in Egypt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I have seldom seen such DU unanimity on the wrong side of a no-brainer as the thirst for Congressional action to formally criticize (condemn, censure, wrist-slap, stigmatize, whatever) Joe Wilson’s (R-Loudmouth) spastic outburst.

The question is this… how does the average DUer invoke the need for institutional respect for the president and presidency without turning to stone on the spot, as if having gazed directly into the eyes of the Gorgon of self-stroking hypocrisy?

Anyone who demanded institutional respect for the president or presidency during the last eight years was a fool. Anyone demanding it today is also a fool.

The aggrandizement of the executive lies at the heart of almost every political pathology that has arisen throughout human history.

The most obvious concept in political philosophy is that the best form of government is rule by an infinitely enlightened dictatorship. The second most obvious concept is that the first most obvious concept is a horrible idea in the world of human beings. Executive power is more durable than good intentions.

Democracy is intrinsically at odds with the executive. The executive is a necessary evil. It is understood that human nature favors monarchy and that when you have a president some folks will treat him/her like a monarch—for instance, taking a great interest in his/her taste in music, or the cuteness of his/her children. It’s primitive stuff, but inevitable.

One hopes that a liberal democracy can retain enough rigor to resist the human drive to project ones own person-hood onto the chief executive. Usually it does.

Alexander Hamilton wanted the President to have a pimped-out uniform, a host of retainers and a list of titles as long as your arm. Fortunately the view of other founders prevailed. Hence we call our president “Mister” and he dresses just like anyone else who works in an office.

It is quintessentially American that protesters deride the president in every way. Our contempt for the president is a national virtue independent of partisan considerations. And we have all seen the danger that arises when America abandons its usual attitude of the President being the latest guy in the national dunking tank. Sometimes, like the mid-1960s, you get an enlightened over-powerful executive who passes civil rights and Medicare before being ruined by an insane war. Over times, like 2002, you get a more typical tyrant who cuts right to the insane war. Interesting that in both post-war cases where tragedy thrust a president into a near-monarchical position a ruinous war followed. Such is the price of exaggerated respect.

Formal action against someone for being rude to the president is mideval. And the fact that the House has a rule demanding such respect is about as meaningful as the fact the house voted to put “In God We Trust” on the money. To say that rules must be enforced even when they are servile, anti-American rules is the heart of dumb-conservatism.

If I were in the House 2002-2003 I would have punctuated Bush’s address about all of Saddam’s WMD with a lot more than a Tourette’s-esque, “You Lie.” Would my antics have prevented the Iraq War? Probably not, but it is hard to argue that my incivility could have led to a worse outcome than what we got. Perhaps it would have emboldened some opponents of the war, just as Wilson’s incivility has emboldened some racist crack-pot tax-cheats.