Obama the Wimpy Tyrant….Or the Pathetic Autocrat….Or Something


Jonah Goldberg phones in a column today about the tyranny of Barack Obama and his flagrant abuse of executive orders, a topic you’d think conservatives would be tired of by now. But I guess they’ll never get tired of it, no matter how inane it obviously is. I was, however, particularly impressed by this howler:

Some of his unilateral actions are a bigger deal, of course. The Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to treat carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” is an outrageous expansion of executive power. But Obama doesn’t tout that as a bullet point; he let the EPA take the political heat for that decision a while ago.

Huh. Last I heard, Massachusetts and some other states sued the EPA, and eventually the Supreme Court ruled that the agency was required to regulate greenhouse gases. The suit began during George W. Bush’s first term and was resolved in 2007, while Barack Obama was still a freshman senator running a longshot campaign for the presidency. Obama has (rather fitfully) decided to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling, but he played no role at all in this particular expansion of executive power. Five Supreme Court justices can take the credit for that.

My other favorite part of the column was the very last sentence, warning Democrats of blowback for their tyrannical ways: “They shouldn’t be surprised if the next Republican president takes advantage of that license.”

No worries there, my friend. We are, after all, talking about the party that fired the Senate parliamentarian when he refused to give them a favorable ruling on a tax bill. The party that decided mid-decade redistricting was a brilliant new idea for expanding its majority. The party that decided to turn the filibuster into a routine requirement for 60 votes to pass any bill at all. The party that held open voting for three hours so it could arm-twist holdouts into voting for Medicare Part D. The party that spent the past three years passing voter ID laws in hopes that it would prevent likely Democratic voters from being able to cast ballots. The party that decided it was kosher to threaten to blow up the good credit of the United States as a bargaining chip in routine budget battles.

That party. I can assure Goldberg that we liberals have assumed all along that if Republicans get control of the presidency or Congress in 2016, they’ll steamroll our current norms of government in ways that make Democrats look like five-year-olds. We’ll be outraged, but we sure won’t be surprised.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate