More Glenn, expanding on Charlie Savage

charlie savage's new book, Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, is given a thorough review by susang at daily kos, but, even more interesting is glenn greenwald's post on mitt romney that builds on savage's boston globe column from yesterday... ol' mitt has certainly been in the cross-hairs the past couple of days (see my earlier post), and, i must admit, is shaping up to be an even more disturbing individual than his empty-suit persona would suggest...

Romney perfectly expresses the driving view of our GOP-dominated political culture over the last seven years, as profoundly un-American as it is Orwellian: You are in grave danger of being slaughtered by Terrorists. The only thing that matters is that your Leader protect you. In order to be safe, you must place your blind faith and trust in the Leader. There can be no limits on the Leader's power -- not even ones you try to place on him through your representatives in Congress -- otherwise you will be in severe danger and might even lose your freedoms.

[...]

Although one would not have thought it possible, a Mitt Romney presidency, by his own description, would remove us still further from those core [Constitutional] principles. Romney isn't running to be President, but to be King. Anyone who wants to dispute that ought to try to distinguish the fantasies of power Romney is envisioning from those the British King possessed in the mid-to-late 18th Century.

i would liken what george bush and his erstwhile successor, mitt romney, espouse as much closer to dictatorship than monarchy... within monarchical systems, there is at least a rudimentary sense of noblesse oblige*... i see nothing in the bush administration or in romney's spoutings that even faintly resembles such a thing...

* "Noblesse oblige" is generally used to imply that with wealth, power and prestige come social responsibilities. The phrase is sometimes used derisively, in the sense of condescending, patronising or hypocritical social responsibility. The term has also been applied more broadly to those who are capable of simple acts to help another, usually one who is less fortunate.

In ethical discussion, it is sometimes used to summarize a moral economy wherein privilege must be balanced by duty towards those who lack such privilege or who cannot perform such duty. Finally, it has been used recently primarily to refer to public responsibilities of the rich, famous and powerful, notably to provide good examples of behaviour or to exceed minimal standards of decency.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet