The New York Times today reports that the US prez just signed an executive order shifting power to the executive branch in the areas of “public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.”
So what’s the dif between this and what’s happening this week in Venezuela? A few big ones come to mind:
--The president granted this power to himself with an executive order. In Venezuela, certain powers stand to be shifted through a vote in the legislature.
--Venezuela’s decision included weeks of public debate and massive international press scrutiny. Oh, and the Rule of Law. Here at home, the directive was passed quietly last week, and was only reported today for the first time.
--Venezuela’s proposed law is temporary; Bush's power to Rule by Decree will stand until the president decides to overturn his own power, or when hell freezes over. Whichever comes second.
Funnily enough, the Times finds nobody to describe this as totalitarianism, communism or dictatorship. They must’ve been on a tight deadline or something. They did have time to interview a Columbia University professor, who helpfully explains it for us:
"Having lost control of Congress," Mr. Strauss said, "the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch."
!!!!
Update: We should note that while the rest of the world press was mesmerized by all the raucous public discussion over Venezuela’s proposed law, it was the diligence of a smaller news outlet that actually caught our own leader getting sneaky. Last week, The New Standard broke this story, and the New York Times played catch-up many days later. Thanks, New Standard, America is grateful, in a materialistic, apathetic sort of way.
