A charismatic young leader, supported by a coalition of intellectual elitists on the one hand and a dependent underclass on the other, has gained control of the country. With each month that passes, the leader and his court reveal themselves to be more hostile to the interests of the middle class. Vast new spending bills are introduced to fund an extension of government power. New taxes of all kinds, the extension of old taxes to cover a broader array of goods and services, the introduction of stealth taxes and special emergency levies, the borrowing of vast sums of money: all of these excesses deeply disturb the public, especially the middle class who are asked to bear all the burdens, even as the abuses are cheered on by an foolish elite and an acquiescent underclass.
As if this were not enough, our young monarch has decided to conduct foreign policy in a suspiciously conciliatory manner toward declared enemies of the nation. Regimes with a history of supporting violence against the interests of the country are suddenly courted as if they were long-time friends. Organizations driven by ideological and religious extremism are “engaged” as if no stigma attached to their past and continuing conduct. Emissaries are dispatched to the most unlikely of foreign capitals to negotiate a policy of appeasement and conciliation.
Along with this, there is the troubling sense that the young prince’s values are alarmingly out of line with the moral and cultural views shared by most of the public. There are reports of lavish expenditures for entertainment, pilgrimages from the capital carried on at public expense, questionable advancement of favorites. There is the suspicion that, when he is not in public view, the young leader is indifferent at best to the deeply held opinions on faith, family, and patriotism that the public holds dear. Many would go further, believing that, when not on show, he and his consort mock these ideals.
Barack Obama? No, Charles I of England.
As any student of history can tell you, that’s not a happy comparison to make: Charles I‘s recklessness and arrogance ultimately drove him into a fight with Parliament, sparking a pair of civil wars that ended with his execution for high treason. Of course, a similar end to Barack Obama’s presidency is vanishingly unlikely—but as today’s Rasmussen tracking poll shows the Presidential Approval Index standing at -7% (30% of voters strongly approve of his performance, while 37% strongly disapprove), it seems clear that the president’s Charles-like path in office so far is having an analogous effect on his personal popularity and political capital. This suggests that he would do well to embrace the bipartisanship he once promised (back in those days before he could dismiss political disagreements with a curt “I won”) and moderate his policies, unless he wants to face the modern American political substitute for civil war—a popular revolt at the polls in the next election. Increasing numbers of people would agree with Jeffrey Folks that there’s good reason:
Today the power of the political elite in Washington far exceeds that of the court of Charles I, and we are in even greater danger of losing our liberties. John Milton was the great spokesman for the opposition during the days of Charles I, and Milton knew well enough what a tyrant was. “A tyrant,” he wrote, “is he who regarding neither law nor the common good, reigns only for himself and his faction.” Could there be any better characterization of the actions of the present administration in Washington?