Admit it: You just want your own dictator

Obama’s inevitable failure to live up to the hype has had many repercussions, and none of them healthy.

One: the hypocrisy of liberalism, which only a few years before was lamenting how W.’s abuses had destroyed the republic, now justify Obama’s numerous executive overreaches because they correspond with liberal political aims. Obama’s argument—and thus, the contention of his fans—seems to pivot on the notion that the president has a moral imperative to “act” on his favored policies because the law-making branch of government refuses to do so. That is weird. This reasoning will almost certainly be modus operandi for presidents unable to push through their own agendas—which, considering where the country is headed, will be every president.

Two: other liberals (and maybe many of the same ones) argue that Obama hasn’t done enough with his power; that the president is unwilling to lead, even if there procedural or constitutional barriers for him to achieve what they demand. Too many Americans seem to believe presidents can make laws if they “fight” hard enough, and now view checks and balances as antiquated and unnecessary impediment to progress.

Three: many one-time small-government conservatives, frustrated with president’s success and the impotence and corruption of their party (often a legitimate complaint, but often an overestimation of politicians can accomplish) are interested in finding their own Obama—or what they imagine Obama is: which is to say, a dictator.