Over the last century, Time magazine has featured the faces of a “person of the year” annually. You can find Donald Trump and Barack Obama, but one illustration went missing: a graphic of how Western leaders became physically smaller over time.
In 1988 Charles Krauthammer opined about Presidential Dwarfism:
But Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy were no dwarfs. And only the historians will be able to judge Bush and Dukakis. The better question is: Why is it that candidates always appear not up to the job?
The deification of the American President begins with the Constitution. The President doubles as head of state and is thus endowed with the aura of a king.
The contradiction of being a king and a dwarf at the same time must be frightening for any prospective nominee, which perhaps explain why narcissists apply if viewed from the hindsight of this decade. But Presidents can still be stymied in order to diminish their projective power:
When it came to more difficult issues — nuclear modernization, school prayer, Robert Bork — even this most popular of Presidents (Reagan) was stymied.
However, after Reagan there appeared to follow three presidencies that were not stymied, and they were Bush junior, Clinton and Obama. CNN was scared that Trump would be the fourth in-line president not to be stymied. But he was such a shock to the Washington uniparty that they promptly set about a mostly peaceful coup. After all, any nation/organization not following in the steps of the Washington unelected elite are put on the regime-change list.
But it was Obama who committed the cardinal sin of diminishing the Office instead of just being “Presidential”:
Mr. Obama, however, claimed the right to judge the legitimacy of the other branches’ proceedings — a seizure of power unheard of in American history. A future president employing this power could ignore legislation that he thought insufficiently debated, recognize laws that had not met the filibuster’s 60-vote requirement, or only enforce unanimous Supreme Court decisions.
What this caused in academic terms can be described as a leadership type know as Multipliers:
According to the authors of Multipliers, there are two types of leaders: Multipliers and Diminishers. Multipliers bring the most out of their team’s abilities and they inspire and push them to do their best. Diminishers only access a small portion of their team’s abilities and prefer to rely on their own intelligence.
Employees and the team are enabled/energized by a multiplier and de-energized/de-enabled by a diminishing leader.
- Multipliers use their intelligence to bring out the intelligence and ability of everyone else.
- Diminishers rely on their own intelligence.
From the Clinton era already these second-tier bureaucratic employees or teams became so accustomed to being energised and being allowed to use their own creativity “in service” of their beloved President, as if they were in wartime, that they ignored Clinton’s little transgressions and wholly supported Bush’s war lies.
These workers became so emboldened by this executive power accorded to them, that when Obama legally capitulated America, they were able to smooth over Obama’s little fetishes, survive Trump’s diminishing leadership style in which he derisively dared to call them “the swamp,” and now prop up the presidential tyranny with an incoherent Joe Biden.
This issue is very serious, because voters are being digitized, children are watching gay parades, organizations go dark and yet political correctness continues to diminish every Western society with their cry for Utopian diversity. And now the Washington elitte is perpetuating this dark state of affairs, because after all, they are more intelligent and know better than us. They are the shot-callers and so be damned with populists forever.
To make this argument undeniably clearer, one must explain the mechanism of how this came about. In other words, how did the second tier of the bureaucracy in Washington become such a powerful tool?
We know that revolving multiplier Presidents emboldened their second-layer employees to the point where they developed, on their own and over a period of twenty-four years, a Washington body of knowledge like the American System Engineering Body of Knowledge. This was not kept secret in the sense of classification, but it was kept away from elected officials such as, and in particular, the deities associated with serving the President of the United States.
As if protecting a tyrant at all costs, the second layer of bureaucrats took it upon themselves to do all the work and then lay the documented executive orders before the President for that final heavenly authorization. In other words, they wrote the Executive Orders and the President merely signed them.
But why did Bush (and others) do it? To establish plausible deniability (of course):
The second word is key: Bush wasn’t briefed on the “specific” techniques till 2006. Under the well-known rules of plausible deniability, he would not have wanted to know too much about these specifics. As indicated in the station chief’s presentation, it’s not that the CIA didn’t tell the president certain details; it’s that the president didn’t want the CIA to tell him.
However, the second layer bureaucrats had to insure themselves as well, so they passed any lack of eniability on to the other organizations such as the Pentagon:
A key point here is that Bush “had directed” the CIA not to tell him the locations of these centres. This fits the classic pattern of “plausible deniability”: The president is told about the drift and outlines of the black program (be it an assassination, a coup, bribery, torture, or whatever), but he doesn’t want to be told too much. He doesn’t want his fingerprints on any directive, so that, in case things go awry, he can blame Langley — and part of Langley’s job is to take the blame.
The last question wonders how, if they already knew about this dysfunction, were these bureaucrats allowed to perpetuate their practices?
The committee offers no recommendations on how to make things better (at least not in the 524-page executive summary partly declassified and released this week), but there are clear lessons for future presidents to absorb. Not least is the dark, slippery slide of “plausible deniability.”
It must be tempting for a president to nod his head, say, “Make it so,” and then sit back, knowing that, whatever “it” is will probably happen. That’s part of what the CIA does and always has done. But as this report, like many similar reports in the past forty years, clearly show, it’s a perilous gamble; the people who carry out such orders take them literally and to the maximum limit. Presidents should stop doing this, even if it means accepting accountability for things they’ve long been enabled to avoid.
The final realization is that regardless of who enters the hallowed Oval Office, there is no limit to what these multiplied bureaucrats can do to anyone, anywhere. Whereas the military may have civilian oversight, there is no fixing the perpetuation of this Dark Organization, because they have gone rogue and as such will diminish society to protect their Kingdom.
In other words, like all dark organizations, they multiply themselves but not their society, which points to incurable narcissism where the President himself becomes a mere symbol. At this point, the tool has become the master and the master the slave, and we serve the symbolism of our past in the hands of an unstable present.