Let's imagine that within the past seven(ish) years you started paying attention to American government and politics for the first time. What would you think of the presidency?
No, not what would you think of the current president. That's a totally different question. I mean the position itself. What would your impression be of our highest elected office?
Chances are you'd consider it a royal-like post. Unlimited license.
If you recently tuned in, you'd bear witness to a steady dose of executive orders and regulations, each extending deeply into the daily experiences of citizens and businesses alike - the mightiest instrument in the land being an Oval Office pen.
To affirm your hunch of an all-powerful executive, you'd turn on the television and watch presidential candidate after candidate - from both sides of the political aisle - declare "What I'll do" when elected to the White House. Rarely would you hear a discussion about what should a president be able to do. Instead, most talking points revolve around what one will do when his or her hands firmly clasp the power vested in Pennsylvania Avenue.
It's a sad and scary reality that the proper role of government as designed by our founders - with authority spread around by checks, balances and that ever-so-quaint concept of federalism - is now little more than campaign-season stumping fodder. Office-seekers lament that we've abandoned it, but few office-holders feel restrained by it.
Earlier this week, David Harsanyi, a senior editor at The Federalist, published one of the most nail-on-the-head articles of 2015, "Admit It. You Just Want Your Own Dictator." Essentially, he argues that the very people who complained about George W's supposed presidential overreach couldn't be happier with Barack Obama's loner approach to the change part of "hope and change" - except for the lot who wish he'd do more.
Where things get really worrisome is that many Republican voters want to overturn the wrongs of Obama by putting their own heavy-handed authoritarian in his place, to elect a one-(wo)man wrecking crew to single-handedly swing the policy pendulum as far right as possible. But there is one big problem with this idea, and Harsanyi points to it in the subtitle of his column: "Those empowered to make everything great also have the power to do everything horrible."
Which is exactly why the framers of American government did everything they could to offset the authority of a single individual.
As a testament to that safeguard, Phil Gramm and Michael Solon penned an op-ed in Monday's Wall Street Journal titled "Cheer Up, Obama's Legacy Can Be Erased." In their piece, they detail how almost every single one of Obama's signature policy items can be undone by a Republican successor. That's the risk of pushing an agenda sans Congress or without listening to the voices of the electorate.
And it's a potential lesson the right should consider as its candidates lick their chops in anticipation of the 2016 elections. Once a Republican executive finishes dismantling Obama's orders, he or she must withstand the urge to act as the 44th president has. Because it's fools gold, false and temporary clout.
President Obama likes to invoke the phrase made popular by Dr. Martin Luther King, that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Likewise, the arc of American history is long, and similar to the "moral universe" it cannot be bent by one person alone. The fact that American government moves slowly is not necessarily a symptom of dysfunction. Often, it's a sign of a well-functioning system.
Looking forward to a very important new year, I'm wishing for a president that sees beyond him- or herself and acts as intended.
Contact David Allen Martin at davidallenmartin423@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @DMart423.