George Will is essentially saying Obama's election is unconstitutional [View All]

[wyldwolf]

Seriously. He disguises it in flowery language, gives some historical perspective that I'm always a sucker for, but ultimately arrives at the conclusion that Obama was elected in a way the Founders never intended and, if you read between the lines, concludes the method in which he was elected is unconstitutional.

His contention? The selection of the presidential nominees was to be controlled by the constitution.

The Founders’ intent... was to prevent the selection of a president from being determined by the “popular arts” of campaigning...

Not being a constitutional scholar myself, I can't argue that point. But being a skilled contrarian with an uncanny grasp of the obvious, I can't help but conclude Will is saying every election for at least the last 100 years was, well, unconstitutional.

The Founders... “were deeply fearful of leaders deploying popular oratory as the means of winning distinction.” That deployment would invite demagoguery, which subverts moderation.

Good speakers can't be moderate?

The Progressives of 100 years ago wanted to popularize presidential selection by rewarding candidates gifted in the popular art of inflaming excitement through oratory. They opened a door through which, eventually, strode George Wallace, Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean and others.

umm... George, none of those candidates were rewarded with the presidency (which is what your piece is about and not that it really matters they were/are gifted speakers.

All in all, a really bizarre argument Will is making here.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167572/output/print