Janan Ganesh on Christian Bale, Dick Cheney, Small Government Republicans, the Unitary Executive, the Trump Impeachment and other pressing questions of the dismal political present. American Writer can’t get past paragraphs one and three!

As as an accomplished, indeed a querulous practitioner of the feuilleton, for the uninitiated a definition : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feuilleton.

Mr Ganesh’s penchant for Pop Culture references is matter of his immersion in the vicissitudes of that cultural/political product: Christian Bale’s performance as the redoubtable Dick Cheney in ‘Vice’ acts as his framing device for his meditation on ‘Small Government Republicans’ – just a slight but necessary digression – Neo-Liberalism demands a ‘strong state’ as the sine qua non of its success, this the most elementary building block of this political/ethical regime.

Should the ‘Unitary Presidency’ be credited to John Yoo ?  Or at least its ‘codification’ with the help of his brother Christopher S. Yoo?

This book is the first to undertake a detailed historical and legal examination of presidential power and the theory of the unitary executive. This theory—that the Constitution gives the president the power to remove and control all policy-making subordinates in the executive branch—has been the subject of heated debate since the Reagan years.

To determine whether the Constitution creates a strongly unitary executive, Steven G. Calabresi and Christopher S. Yoo look at the actual practice of all forty-three presidential administrations, from George Washington to George W. Bush. They argue that all presidents have been committed proponents of the theory of the unitary executive, and they explore the meaning and implications of this finding.

This publication is available on the following link(s):

The above provided by : https://politicalscience.yale.edu/publications/unitary-executive-presidential-power-washington-bush

The reader is just one paragraph into  Mr. Ganesh’s essay and we are deep into the territory of his ideological map of misreadings, or is it cultivated ignorance, of the most specialized kind?

The third paragraph offers this:

When the Senate acquits Mr Trump in the coming weeks, partisan fealty will be the main reason. That, and what Michael Gerson, the former speech writer to George W Bush, calls “understandable cowardice”. Republicans who believe that Mr Trump has a case to answer also know that he will turn his tweets, his voters and his donors on any who defy him.

With the collapse of ‘Russiagate’ followed closely by the ‘Impeachment’ of Trump by Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler, and its maladroitly confected ‘evidence of presidential wrong doing’ , a monument to Schiff’s political hysteria: he is the reincarnation of Joe McCarthy and his notorious ‘list of names’ .

Look to the House star witnesses Sondland , Vindman and Fiona Hill as part of the central evidentiary linchpins of the case against Trump. In nearly 30 hours of ‘testimony’ as exemplary of Schiff clear evidence of a misbegotten dramaturgy, held together by well timed strategic leaking of what the Corp. Media characterizes as ‘Bombshells’: in service to a re-invigoration of the case. Note that the two weeks of secret hearings gave Schiff ample opportunity to cobble together his Presidential Abuse Melodrama, that satisfies an utterly  uncritical Press, suffering from an advanced case of ‘Trump Fatigue Syndrome’. A ‘Press’ that is complicit in the rise of Trump, as are the Republicans and The New Democrats!

The newest ‘event’ is this melodrama is  the possibility that Republican Senators Romney,Collins and Murkowski will breach the long forgotten 11 th Commandment, and vote for Impeachment!

So much more to say, yet I won’t quite commit the crime against the readers patience committed by Mr. Ganesh, or at the least my crime is just a misdemeanor.

American Writer







About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.