The Conquest by Presidentialism

by: David Sirota  |  Truthdig

The Conquest by Presidentialism
Presidentialism. (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)

    You have to hand it to John McCain—his campaign ads are (inadvertently) the most incisive commentary on the death of Jeffersonian democracy ever broadcast.

    Superficially, they lambaste Barack Obama’s worshipful crowds and messianic promises that a heavenly "light will shine down" on his candidacy. But what the ads really lampoon is what Vanderbilt professor Dana Nelson calls presidentialism: our paternalistic view that presidents are godlike saviors—and therefore democracy’s only important figures.

    "The once-every-four-years hope for the lever pull sensation of democratic power blinds people to the opportunities for democratic representation, deliberation, activism and change that surrounds us in local elections," she writes in her new book, "Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of the People."

    In a country whose anti-royalist founders constitutionally constrained executive authority, what explains the metastatic growth of presidentialism? The evisceration of journalism and social movements.

    The media’s Watergate triumph sired the current Age of Stenography. With personal glory the new priority, correspondents figured out that transcribing White House prognostication is a far easier way to gain notoriety than Woodward and Bernstein’s shoe-leather investigations. The result is journalism run by grotesque sloth and vapid speculation—the kind exemplified by The New York Times’ top three political correspondents this week. As inflation hit crisis levels and the Russia-Georgia conflict inched the planet toward World War III, these "reporters" devoted a stunning 2,148 words to fact-free guesses about selections for vice president—a position with no power and zero impact on ordinary people’s lives.

    Media consolidation and cost-cutting have sped up this decline, turning many local news outlets into collages of wire copy and presidential punditry from D.C. bureaus. Meanwhile, the 21st century’s most celebrated model of "grass-roots" movement-building is MoveOn.org—a top-down group whose primary function is to land stories about itself in Washington gossip rags and send e-mail spam about presidential candidates.

    The resulting noise reiterates one message: The only thing that matters is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

    Why is this dangerous? First and foremost, by ignoring local elections and issue-based organizing in favor of presidential politics, activists make presidential progress less likely. "Even the best presidents need social movements to accomplish transformational change," warns community activist Deepak Bhargava in The Nation magazine’s latest White House-centric edition. "FDR could not have succeeded without the agitation of the unemployed workers’ councils and the unions, and LBJ’s greatest accomplishments were made possible by the civil rights movement."

    Worse, presidentialism leads us to ignore the arenas where issues are already being sorted out.

    For example, how many of the Democratic convention delegates incensed by the Obama-McCain energy brouhaha have any idea that just beyond Denver’s Rocky Mountain horizon, a battle over Colorado’s massive gas reserves will more immediately impact the national energy crisis than the inane presidential back-and-forth about offshore drilling? Better yet, how many Democratic enthusiasts donning Obama T-shirts know who their state representative or city council member is—or even what a state legislature or city council does?

    In his upcoming book, "You Can’t Be President," journalist John MacArthur ponders the depressing answers to these kinds of questions, reminding readers of Alexis de Tocqueville’s 19th-century writing.

    "It is in vain to summon a people, which has been rendered so dependent on the central power, to choose from time to time the representatives of that power," he observed. "This rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity."

    Published 168 years ago, the passage is a prescient warning as the upcoming Democratic and Republican conventions toast presidentialism’s conquest of democracy in America.

    --------

    David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was released in June. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



I agree that presidentialism

I agree that presidentialism is a problem for our democracy's future, but I have to say that a bad president (as we have seen in the last 8 years especially, although not exclusively) can be quite deadly!


Well, Sirota is right all

Well, Sirota is right all the way. Lack of interest, let alone participation, in local and State politics is even more damaging when you consider the ineffectiveness of the majority of our Congresspeople in performing their duties of watchdogs over the executive. That is where the real problem is at this time.


The focus on the

The focus on the presidential race this year is important because of what Bush has done to the office, far worse than Clinton, and the resultant US economy as an extension of the corporate state that has been nearly institutionalized during Bush's residence there. It's not surprising people are paying more than usual attention to it. No single office has as much clout to help or harm us at home and abroad. With the extra attention, people should be taking note of the poor excuse for debate this election engenders, and push for election process reform. It would be a start for third party candidates to be included in the debate. It is a distinct disservice being done in the media, as well as in gov't., on behalf of Americans that they are not included.


I would only point out that

I would only point out that Obama has never presented himself as a savior-like figure. He has emphasized reaching across the aisle, bipartisanship, collaboration, hard work, pulling together, and the tough job we have ahead. He has repeatedly stated that he seeks people who disagree with and challenge him. How ironic (and perhaps disingenuous) that McCain would run these kinds of ads against the very candidate who strives to avoid "presidentialism."


I have never thought that

I have never thought that Woodward and Bernstein were "notorious." I've always considered them heroes. (See quote below.) With personal glory the new priority, correspondents figured out that transcribing White House prognostication is a far easier way to gain notoriety than Woodward and Bernstein’s shoe-leather investigations.


Crook politics has nothing

Crook politics has nothing to do with real politics. Crook politics is an enormous scam that raises money for crook media. Real politics exists on the net and in the streets. It is much more than pulling a lever. It is almost a form of therapy that helps suckers and lazy cowards to overcome being suckers and lazy cowards..


Give me a queen and let the

Give me a queen and let the president just do his/her job! Presidentialism pays too much attention to a president's personal life, family, etc. That's what queens are for! Imagine if we invested all the emotion into the soap opera of a royal family that had no real power and let the president just do a good job. Just maybe we'd get better candidates for presidents if they would not have to deal with the media circus that has become presidential politics in this country. I don't think Obama has done anything to bring on this presidentialism/idol worship. Nevertheless, I think our country would be healthier without it.


I keep thinking about the

I keep thinking about the woman who succeeded babybush as governor of Texas. She spent her two terms righting the gross wrongs perpetrated by said expletive deleted. She didn't get a chance to carry out her own policies because it took that long to clean up. She did it though. But now in addition to cleaning a dirty house, we the people desperately need so much more. Mr. Obama may have to spend a great deal of time fixing our broken country. That is one reason why Mr. Sirota's message is important