We don't need a leader
Penn Jillette is absolutely right:
We need someone stupid enough to understand that the president of the United States can't solve many problems without taking away freedom and therefore shouldn't try. The only reason John McCain scares me a little less is because I think he's a little less likely to win. They both promise a government that will watch over us, and I don't like that.And neither Obama or McCain are going to offer less government and let you live your life as you see fit.I don't want anyone as president who promises to take care of me. I may be stupid, but I want a chance to try to be a grown-up and take care of my family. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, and that's what I want. I don't want anyone to feel my pain or tell me to ask what we can do for our country, or give us all money and take care of us.
Gene Healy at the Cato Institute explains that the Founding Fathers wanted the president "to faithfully execute the laws, defend the country from attack and check Congress with the veto power whenever it exceeded its constitutional bounds."
That sounds like plenty to me. You gotta be smarter than me to do all that, but you don't have to be as smart as Obama, and you sure don't have to be a great leader.
[...]
I think Ron Paul and Bob Barr mean it when they say they want much smaller government. But the government is already big enough, powerful enough and bipartisan enough (and "bi" means exactly two and no more) that Ron and/or Bob won't even be in the debates. People won't even hear someone suggesting that our president should do less and individual citizens should do more for themselves.The choice shouldn't be which lesser of two evils should have the enormous power of our modern presidents. The question should be, who would do less as president? Who would leave us alone?
Comments
Well said, Mr. Jillette. The problem is that most Americans have been conditioned to think that presidents must do a lot for us, must take care of us, and must come up with a gazillion new programs or else they are weak. Heck, even history is not kind to the presidents who came in to office and said that the Congress should lead the way and that they would get out of the way and allow the Congress to be Congress and represent the voters who elected them. According to the Constitution and the ideas of our founding fathers, the executive branch was supposed to be much weaker than the legislative branch. That is not the way many Americans think because of the left-wing media and the power brokers in Washington. That is nothing new though. Historians beat up presidents like John Tyler and Grover Cleveland because they felt that Congress should take the reigns of leadership, and that the president should simply protect the people and execute the laws passed by Congress as long as they were within the bounds of the Constitution.
Posted by: Professor Wells | September 6, 2008 12:51 PM
This is one of the main reasons I love Penn Jillette. I was so sad when his radio program went off the air.
Posted by: Paul Shuford | September 6, 2008 08:25 PM
People won't even hear someone suggesting that our president should do less and individual citizens should do more for themselves.
And that is the tragedy. It's a rigged game.
Posted by: Larry Stanley | September 7, 2008 05:41 PM