Posted by
Crescen7(Regis Matejcik) on Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:00:00 AM
It now seems likely that Barack Obama will be the Democrat Nominee for President. He claims to represent "change" and "hope." Or perhaps more succinctly "hope for change." It is more likely, however that the candidacy of B. Hussein Obama represents the extension of a creeping trend in American politics. That is, the election of figureheads to executive offices while exective authority is usurped by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.
This trend has been increasing at all levels of elected government. Many cities now elect a mayor with only ceremonial responsibility while executive functions are carried out by a "City Manager." This council-manager form of government currently is in use by the majority of cities in the U.S. with populations over 12,000. (source - Wikipedia). While the goals of this format are to make the executive position less political, the effect is often to make it less accountable. The elected council supposedly establishes policy, while the professional managers establish rules to enforce established policy. Often the rules become defacto laws, although no ordinance or other legislative action has been taken.
On the State and Federal level, similar conditions exist when agencies are established and given authority to regulate a specific activity. The agency, in many cases, establishes rules which have the effect of laws, again without the benefit of any specific legislative action. The EPA comes to mind as the most visible example of this condition. The EPA exerts specific authority over wide berth of activities, setting rules on everything from insecticide concentrations to the quality of emissions coming from an individuals personal vehicle. Once again, should one take issue with agency established "rules" there is no direct redress available via the election process. The executive activties of the Government therefore become increasingly insulated from true public scrutiny.
In Barack Obama, we have a candidate who brings to the table virtually no executive experience, nor the promise of such. His credentials include his activities as a "community organizer" in the Chicago area. Given his meteoric rise in popularity in his pursuit of the most powerful executive office in the world, one could expect to be inundated with the spectacular success of the Chicago area communities that were successfully organized and miraculously reformed as a result of Obama's work. Yet, no such stories seem to exist.
In Barack Obama we have an extrordinarly gifted speaker who is a good looking black man. This seems to be the most important issue to his supporters. They want the world to know, that their elected "face" in the world, is an attractive, elequent black man. Or in other words, a "Figurehead." Somehow that makes up for eight years of being identified with an inarticulate white Texan.
Obama's grasp of economic issues and foreign policy are stunningly inept. To many Americans though, the lack policy expertise is inconsequential. That is because they've come to regard the Government as an entrenched bureaucracy, with which neither they nor the elected President will have much effect. To a great extent the model of Government as an immovable behemoth may explain some of the intense hatred directed toward George Bush. GWB has, after all, behaved more like an executive than any President since Ronald Reagan. He's made decisions, taken action, and taken all the heat for the consequences. By contrast, Obama indicates no specific policy directive and given his lack of political experience, is unlikely to do anything but go along with the initiatives of Congress and their powerful lobbying constituencies.
Should Barack Obama be successful in his bid to be elected President, he will mark the start of the ceremonial Presidency, and the increased distancing of governing power from the hands of the electorate. This unfortunately is not "change", it's the furthering of a trend that has been growing for too long.