While your argument is cogent, I'd submit it's got very little to do with the current Washington mess.
Let's propose that the current government shutdown isn't driven by the chief executive, but a wanna-be chief executive who threatens the current leaders of both the House and Senate with primary challenges in 2026.
The wanna-be's name is Alexandra Occasio-Cortez, and both Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are in her Brooklyn district and thus vulnerable to her threats. She has been on the record as threatening both Schumer and Jeffries with primaries next year if they don't comply with HER wishes, HER policies and demands. If this is true, the current "tyrant" isn't in charge of anything, but directs everything.
If true, AOC is the current "leader" of the US and, indeed, a tyrant because of political infighting. How does that fit into your thesis?
Nice review. I'd like more analogies to today, but I imagine that is a later post/book. One caveat though: a lot of these fights are fights between aristocrats and rulers. And a lot of them had to do with aristocrats pissed off about paying for ambitious executive wars, which their various monopolies could not be pressed hard enough to fund. Once that was resolved, British became a strong state, and eventually an empire. Here the tension is not between the aristocrats and the king, but between many agents and the bureaucracy that has been growing since Francis Bacon. The civil services, scientific labs, academic departments, professional societies, etc. The authority of expertise is being radically challenged. Whether that is good or bad is getting to be besides the point. What is becoming evident is that what's emerging as the natural challenge to this dispersed order is the strong man. The strong man represents not just a champion against an established order, he represents a new knowledge model, which is, we identify with the strong man, and the strong man identifies with us, via common sense. So, while yes, we can find analogs to executive friction in the past, I think this is something relatively new, and a strong reaction to an equally strong tendency.
I realize it sounds absurd to say the strong man is a "new" knowledge model, since it is an old one, but relatively, yes, we are in new territory. Even pre-progressive era, dispersed power was assumed.
To put it in modern terms, the democrat&republican politicians are the king, parliament, and all of the lords & ladies in America. Therefore, it is incumbent upon "We the People" to remove these traitors from our land or continue to live under the unconstitutional democrat&republican PARTY tyranny.
Lebo Von Lo~Debar
Former/Always 82nd Airborne Infantryman, Disabled Veteran for Life, & Author of the book, "The Separation of Corporation and State" subtitled "Common Sense and the Two-Party Crisis" Available on Amazon.
While your argument is cogent, I'd submit it's got very little to do with the current Washington mess.
Let's propose that the current government shutdown isn't driven by the chief executive, but a wanna-be chief executive who threatens the current leaders of both the House and Senate with primary challenges in 2026.
The wanna-be's name is Alexandra Occasio-Cortez, and both Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are in her Brooklyn district and thus vulnerable to her threats. She has been on the record as threatening both Schumer and Jeffries with primaries next year if they don't comply with HER wishes, HER policies and demands. If this is true, the current "tyrant" isn't in charge of anything, but directs everything.
If true, AOC is the current "leader" of the US and, indeed, a tyrant because of political infighting. How does that fit into your thesis?
Nice review. I'd like more analogies to today, but I imagine that is a later post/book. One caveat though: a lot of these fights are fights between aristocrats and rulers. And a lot of them had to do with aristocrats pissed off about paying for ambitious executive wars, which their various monopolies could not be pressed hard enough to fund. Once that was resolved, British became a strong state, and eventually an empire. Here the tension is not between the aristocrats and the king, but between many agents and the bureaucracy that has been growing since Francis Bacon. The civil services, scientific labs, academic departments, professional societies, etc. The authority of expertise is being radically challenged. Whether that is good or bad is getting to be besides the point. What is becoming evident is that what's emerging as the natural challenge to this dispersed order is the strong man. The strong man represents not just a champion against an established order, he represents a new knowledge model, which is, we identify with the strong man, and the strong man identifies with us, via common sense. So, while yes, we can find analogs to executive friction in the past, I think this is something relatively new, and a strong reaction to an equally strong tendency.
Maybe the relevant Anglo-American past would be the cultural upheaval of the English Civil War?
I realize it sounds absurd to say the strong man is a "new" knowledge model, since it is an old one, but relatively, yes, we are in new territory. Even pre-progressive era, dispersed power was assumed.
Unfortunately, many citizens aren't even aware of history from five years ago. Little chance they connect the dots going back centuries.
And don't forget that the reason so many Europeans risked death and destruction to come to America was to escape repression from their rulers.
To put it in modern terms, the democrat&republican politicians are the king, parliament, and all of the lords & ladies in America. Therefore, it is incumbent upon "We the People" to remove these traitors from our land or continue to live under the unconstitutional democrat&republican PARTY tyranny.
Lebo Von Lo~Debar
Former/Always 82nd Airborne Infantryman, Disabled Veteran for Life, & Author of the book, "The Separation of Corporation and State" subtitled "Common Sense and the Two-Party Crisis" Available on Amazon.