The revelations concerning the Obama administration's dissembling regarding its preparedness and response to the tragic and avoidable American deaths at Benghazi, the substantial efforts to secretly comb though reporters' communications — both personal and professional — and the IRS' blatant efforts to single out conservative groups for broad and intrusive scrutiny has justifiably called attention to how important it is that the government "do what's right" to borrow a phrase from a trust in government poll question.
Of necessity, Americans have to depend on the integrity of those in whom we vest political and administrative power not to take advantage of or abuse their positions. And many do not. But conflating your views with the public's interest and believing that your experience has resulted in your having superior policy insights that must be acted upon even if rules are bent or avoided is an occupational hazard for political leaders of every viewpoint. That is true as well of some political appointees and supposedly neutral "civil servants".
That hazard, however, is a particular temptation for presidents and administrations that see themselves as morally superior to their opponents, as well as having better, more legitimate political arguments. When that happens it is far easier to justify any rule bending or breaking necessary to achieve your goals.
The administration's wide-ranging leak-plugging efforts, the Benghazi rhetorical efforts to avoid a factual counter claim to the president's narrative of successful efforts against al-Qaeda, and especially the blatantly partisan misuse of the IRS against conservative groups have all combined to underscore the dangers of arbitrary executive power.
Historically, these dangers are not new, and the Obama administration is not the first to succumb to the assumption that it knows what's best. It is, however, one of the few modern presidencies to combine that assumption with the presumption of superior moral virtue.
The leak investigations, Benghazi dissembling, and the IRS's abuse of its power have all called public attention to a defining, hidden-in-plain-sight element of this administration from its beginning — lofty rhetoric combined with a determined dedication to further this president's prospects and protect his image.
These efforts are often accompanied by a barely, and often unconcealed, disdain for the president's political opponents and their position. This is reflected not only in the harsh rhetoric that the president often uses, but also in his strenuous efforts to undo previously passed bipartisan legislation through unilateral executive agreements.
One striking example of this is the administration's effort to dilute the work requirements of President Clinton's welfare reform legislation. The administration denied that intent and said it only wanted to increase the program's "flexibility". That argument was undercut by a 2009 memo from the Department of Health and Human Services laying out the ways and the circumstances in which the welfare work requirements could be waived or lessened.
Another striking example is the administration's efforts to nullify George W. Bush's signature No Child Left Behind legislation. As The New York Times put it, "In just five months, the Obama administration has freed schools in more than half the nation from central provisions of the No Child Left Behind education law, raising the question of whether the decade-old federal program has been essentially nullified." The dean of the University of Pennsylvania's School of Education is quoted as saying, "the more waivers there are, the less there really is a law, right?"
Exactly.
Given this history and the administration's propensities, it not surprising that the president went far beyond the normal boundaries of executive discretion in summarily changing the enforcement of American immigration law.
And, as luck would have it, the discretionary changes he put into place just happened to help his reelection prospects with America's largest and fastest growing new ethnic group whose support he badly needed.
Next: The President's Reelection Immigration Policy
