Does a fantastic American strength... double as a crippling American weakness?
The nation's Founders erected a governmental apparatus so unwieldy, so inert, so plodding, it is exceedingly difficult to budge.
That is, it is exceedingly difficult to "get things done."
Imagine an automobile with merely two gears first gear and reverse gear.
Imagine further that once the thing attains 10 miles per hour forward, it transitions instantly to reverse gear.
Back and forth this preposterous contraption goes. A mile's advance is the work of a year or longer.
There you have the constitutional order as originally conceived.
Let us propose an alternate example.
Assume an American football field, 100 yards in length.
American politics is designed to rage within 20 yards of midfield between one 40-yard line and the other 40-yard line.
Neither Democrat nor Republican can advance past 10 yards of midfield.
When the nation runs to normal settings, the inefficient automobile and the gridlocked gridiron are superexcellent benefits to the republic.
They are in fact triumphs of the American political order.
They chain down the fanatics, power-ravenous and politically lustful among us.
Men in a hurry as the politically lustful often are are mired in mud.
Again: Here we describe a central strength of the American system, a bulwarking pillar.
Also again: The political system so described is a central strength when the nation runs to sane settings.
Yet what if the nation runs to lunatic settings, as it presently does in our estimation?
Then that central strength transitions to a central weakness. It becomes not an asset but a liability.
That is because the very inertia the constitutional structure fosters... is now in service to lunacy.
Those who would restore sanity cannot move beyond first gear. They cannot breach the opponent's 40-yard line.
It is they who are mired in mud.
"We're borrowing $10 billion each day to fund the federal government," they moan.
"We're already $35 trillion in debt and heading for a massive debt crisis if we don't stop the madness. This can't continue," they add.
Yet they go nowhere because they are victims of constitutional inertia the identical constitutional inertia that was heretofore a virtue, presently a vice.
We have told the following tale before. Today we tell it again...
Former colleague David Stockman directed the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan.
There he threw himself against the vast inertia of the United States government.
The inertia won and David lost.
David discovered that the slenderest budget item has impossible inertia to keep it going.
For example: David proposed shuttering the national endowments for the arts and humanities and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
They were not proper functions of government, David argued. And there was ample private philanthropy to make any shortages good.
David says the combined budgets of these programs amounted to a mere six hours of federal spending annually.
Six hours of spending out of a 365-day calendar!
Yet closing out those six hours proved impossible.
David was poor Sisyphus pushing his rock eternally uphill... only to have it roll eternally downhill upon him.
David ultimately submitted a modest 25% trimming to Capitol Hill.
Would Capitol Hill sanction this 25% trim? It would not.
It ceded David "maybe an 8% reduction for a couple of years until the various K Street lobbies and assorted forces of high-toned culture completely restored the funding."
That is, no elimination. Not even a 25% trim but an 8% nicking and a temporary nicking at that.
Here is a question:
If you cannot even put a sustained 8% nick in the national endowments for the arts and humanities or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting... how are you going to work genuine cuts anywhere else?
Here is the shortened answer: You cannot. Here is the lengthened answer: You cannot.
Contrast briefly the American system with the Argentinian system...
In theory the American system is the superior system. It is the stable system.
Argentina's, meantime, is the basket-case system.
Yet last year Argentina elected an "extremist" the libertarian fanatic Javier Milei.
What has this fellow done in office?
He has issued 15,000 pink-hued slips to the parasitic public sector.
He has transformed perennial budget deficits into surplus Argentina's first budget surplus in decades.
Inflation, 26% when he entered office last December, presently goes at 4%.
Handsome! Could an American president operating within the American system work the same effects?
He could not. The constitutional inertia is overwhelmingly against him.
Thus we maintain in this instance that the immoderate Argentinian system is the superior system and the moderate American system is the inferior system.
The American system's inertial virtue has become its inertial vice.
And as Mr. Barry Goldwater thundered:
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."
Below, we republish our argument that the United States requires a dictator but a very unusual sort of dictator.
What sort of dictator? Read on...
By Brian Maher
We are informed that former president Trump if democratically reelected is a dictator in waiting. He will swallow the key to the ballot box, we are told. And with it, American liberty.
As most Americans, your editor was reared in the democratic religion. Thus dictatorship ranks with communism, fascism and related seditions.
Yet the anti-American concept of dictatorship begins to seduce him. How can an American of the reddest dye entertain such corrosive notions? That is because the dictatorship we propose is a dictator for liberty.
The candidate must meet all the constitutional requirements of a standard president. He must be a natural-born citizen of the United States (the position is open to women, yet women, as a whole, appear less equipped by nature for the rigors of dictatorship. We grant the possible exception of a woman surnamed Clinton).
He must be 35 years old or higher. He must be resident within the United States for 14 prior years. To these three fundamental musts we add a fourth:
He must not want the job. That is correct. He must lack all political ambition. The fire for office must be entirely absent from his belly.
How will this dictator of ours be selected? He must be selected by a council of his peers. That is, he must be selected rather ironically through the democratic process. We have not arranged the particular details. We are willing to entertain all reasonable suggestions.
But our dictator will be selected for his apathy, for his inclinations to loaf, for his nearly inhuman capacity to snooze 18 hours of the 24.
Once appointed dictator not nominated but appointed the man cannot refuse it. That is, he himself is subjected to a dictatorship of sorts.
Should he attempt to beg off, his request will be denied. Should he refuse the appointment, he is to be packed off to the gallows... where he will hang... until dead. Or if the spirit of clemency reigns, he is to be jugged for three consecutive life terms.
Is the business fair to him? Is the business just? Perhaps it is neither. Yet life is neither. And at times principle must yield to practical necessities. And a dictator for liberty, at least by our liver and lights, is at present a practical necessity.
The democratic process has itself become a menace to American liberty. And we are heart and soul for American liberty. Thus we are heart and soul for American dictatorship. Do you follow along?
Assume our proposal goes through. Assume our dictator for liberty is selected. Assume further that he takes the dictatorial oath... and enters office. Inauguration Day is a special day, even for our unwilling dictator.
He therefore rises early in token thereof at half past noon. What does he do? He proceeds immediately to the United States Capitol... where he addresses a joint session of Congress.
He opens an envelope containing prepared remarks. They go like this:
Greetings ladies and gentlemen of Congress [fighting off a yawn]. Unlike you, I don't want to be here. I'm already missing one of my favorite television shows, so I'll be brief.
As dictator, I order the following.
You will cut spending 25% each year of my four-year dictatorship. If I am reappointed dictator for a second term, the same mandate applies a 25% annual cut.
I would order an even greater cut, but I don't want to shock the system too much. I think 25% is more than reasonable.
Do not think you can weasel out of it. I know how you people define "cut." To you, a cut is simply a reduction in the rate of growth. If you were going to spend 10% more on something but only spend 8% more, you call it a cut.
No. I mean an actual 25% cut. If you were going to spend $1 million on something, you must reduce it to $750,000. Again, in each year of my dictatorship (howls of outrage rise from the floor).
Let us interrupt, Mr. Dictator, briefly...
The United States government is ladling out some $6.8 trillion in 2024. That same government may ladle out $7.3 trillion in 2025. Let us assume a 2025 budget of $7.3 trillion.
Now assume this dictator of ours assumes office in January 2025... and imposes his 25% annual cuts.Spending plummets some $1.8 trillion the initial year. Then again in the second year. And the third. And the fourth.
By the close of his dictatorship, four years later, government spending will have absorbed a $7.3 trillion whaling. How do you like it?
Is the business anti-democratic? The business is anti-democratic, we concede it at once. Yet democracy has sunk the nation $35.6 trillion in debt. And very soon, $35 trillion in debt. Before long, $40 trillion and then $50 trillion.
Hence the necessity of our anti-democratic dictatorship for liberty.
You may proceed, Mr. Dictator...
And if you try to disobey me or go around my back? I'll fix you. I'll order every lobbying firm in the land under highest penalty to reject your application for employment once you leave Congress. In other words, you can forget your cushy lobbyist job.
You will never work in this town again. I'll ensure that you cannot get a lobbyist job in Washington that enriches you far beyond your desserts. You will have to find honest, productive employment in the private sector... somewhere... somehow.
Given your "talents," it is unlikely you will find such an offer. What are your employable skills? They appear limited to the dark arts of politics. If I ever need to change a tire or even a light bulb you would be the last people I phone.
Your days of wine and roses are over at least for four years and hopefully eight.
["This is an outrage! You won't get away with this!" comes a cry from the Senate majority leader. It is seconded, thirded, 532nded.]
Watch me. Remember, I'm a dictator! Besides, you've got to get up pretty early in the afternoon to get one over on me.
Don't misunderestimate me. Adieu, ladies and gentlemen. If you'll excuse me, I have important television to watch.
Our freshly installed dictator proceeds to the West Wing of the White House.
In his initial official act, he turns on the television. He repairs to the couch and instructs the butler to fetch him potato chips and a bottle of Coca-Cola. Hours pass. At which point a phone rings. Reluctantly, the dictator accepts the call.
It is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He yells about a pending national security cataclysm. A terrorist outfit in Nauru is denouncing the United States.
Apparently it cannot be confirmed they are devotees of Czar Putin and Chairman Xi. The chairman thunders that these Nauru demoniacs intend to purchase a Facebook advertisement to sway the mayoral race of Marlborough, Massachusetts.
The 7th Fleet must raise anchor, argues the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Marines must take ship and the 82nd Airborne must take wing... else the enemies of democracy may prevail.
"But I'm an enemy of democracy, aren't I?," the dictator retorts. "Eh, whatever. I'll let someone else figure it all out."
"Sir, if we do not defeat democracy's enemies in Nauru today," explains the chairman, "we will have to confront them in Marlborough tomorrow." Yet our dictator remains upon his couch, lounging, looking at Wheel of Fortune, munching potato chips and guzzling Coca-Cola.
"You need an F, dammit! An F! That'll solve the damn puzzle. Can't you see it? I'm sorry, General, did you say something?" "Sir, this is a very serious matter."
"OK then, wake me up when whatever these people are called invade California or something. And even then, I'm open to negotiation. I'm even inclined to hand it to them, California's practically another country as is."
"But sir, this has serious implications for American power and prestige around the world. If we don't stop these terrorists in Nauru, what does it tell our Pacific allies? And what does it tell Putin? That he can invade all of Europe? More importantly, what does it tell Raytheon with whom I plan to seek a consulting position once I depart government? That my services aren't needed?"
The dictator in chief puts down the telephone and directs his full attention to the television screen... where it remains for the proceeding four years. His sole exertion is the fevered working of his veto pen.
These are four years of unprecedented liberty at home. These are four years of unprecedented peace abroad. After which the American people initially hostile to dictatorship chant in unison:
"Four more years! Four more years!"
The Daily Reckoning