Joe Biden the Dictator

[Lloyd Perna]

Joe Biden in October 2020

I have this strange notion, we are a democracy ... If you can't get the votes ... you can't [legislate] by executive order unless you're a dictator.  We're a democracy.  We need Consensus.

Video

In his first week, As of January 25th, 2021 Biden has issued 21 executive orders. As well as a bunch of other Executive actions.

How did his predecessors do?
Trump - 4
Obama - 5
GWB - 0
Clinton - 1

[LetterRip]

He has been almost exclusively canceling Trumps orders and returning things to where legislators left them, so rather the opposite.

[Aris Katsaris]

In December 10 meeting (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics/joe-biden-audio-civil-rights-leaders/index.html) Biden also said that he'd roll back everything Trump did with executive authority, but he'd not go further and violate the constitution.

So, sorry, Lloyd, but just giving the number of 'executive orders' doesn't mean one thing, you have to tell us which one of these orders you think violated the constitution or the authority the president has.

[Grant]

He has been almost exclusively canceling Trumps orders and returning things to where legislators left them, so rather the opposite.

Yeah.  I was going to say the exact same thing but you beat me to it.  So I figured I'd list them all to better illustrate the point and I found that it's not exactly true. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/here-s-full-list-biden-s-executive-actions-so-far-n1255564

I counted about 36 executive orders.  I only counted 11 that were related to undoing Trump EOs or policies.  They include:

Paris Agreement
Muslim Ban
Immigration Rules
Regulatory Restrictions
Undocumented Immigrants on the Census
Ethics Pledge
State of Emergency for Great Wall of Trump funds
Federal worker protections
Military transgender ban
Cov19 travel restrictions
Trump housing policies


That leaves a whole bunch more that were not directly related to Trump policies.  A bunch of them seems to be responding to the pandemic:

Mask wearing on federal property
Covid response Khan
COV 19 travel restrictions
Access to cov 19 treatments
Data driven response to cov 19
National guard use for cov 19
Public health supply chain
COV 19 equity task force
Opening schools
Workplace safety
Pandemic testing board

Given the dearth of Federal leadership during the pandemic and lack of coordinated response, one would think these would be welcome rather than complained about.  The only thing I could see as politically problematic is the idea of the equity task force.  The CDC already got slapped pretty hard earlier when they initially suggested prioritizing minorities for vaccine administration in order to promote "racial equity". 

A number of other orders don't really reverse an Orange EO, they just bring back an old Obama restriction, like the Keystone PL permit hold. 

That leaves a whole bunch of orders that are either purely political rhetoric or just what they are accused of being, executive rule by fiat. 

Racial equity promotion
LGBTQ discrimination
Freezing federal student loan payments
SNAP expansion
Veteran debt
Unemployment insurance
Benefit delivery teams
Stimulus payments
Buy America
Private prison use restricted
Commitment to tribal sovereignty
Asian discrimination

I mean, I think some of these are nothing but show statements.  Some of them are not and may be only temporary, making them just another type of show statement. 

Regardless, it's a whole bunch of EOs in the first week and most of them are not related to Trump EOs.  Half of these are aimed at dealing with a federal emergency, the others are debatable.  It all depends on if you think Asian discrimination and racial equity are national emergencies.  I'm sure several on the left believe this to be the case.   

Edited:  Some of the things I counted as EOs are just memorandums or proclaimations, and should not be counted towards an EO count.  Whatever. I was in a hurry. I have a meeting in 18 minutes. 

[NobleHunter]

One alarming thing about the slate of orders is the immediate reversals of policy. While I generally agree that Trump's policies should be reversed, I'm worried it might become a thing. Governments are not supposed to completely undo as much of their predecessor's work the moment they get into power. While it would be rough domestically, it makes sustained foreign policy impossible.

[yossarian22c]

One alarming thing about the slate of orders is the immediate reversals of policy. While I generally agree that Trump's policies should be reversed, I'm worried it might become a thing. Governments are not supposed to completely undo as much of their predecessor's work the moment they get into power. While it would be rough domestically, it makes sustained foreign policy impossible.

Just underscores the need for a functioning legislature that can pass laws that can't be undone by executive order. And foreign policy that involves treaties that go through the senate as opposed to hand shake deals with presidents and the state department. It all boils down to the Senate is broken.

Early indications in the Biden administration are that it will stay that way.

[Grant]

Total numbers of executive orders per President

Trump:  220 over 1 term
Oabama:  269 over 2 terms
Bush II:  285 over 2 terms
Clinton: 364 over 2 terms
Bush I:  166 over 1 term
Reagan: 381 over 2 terms
Carter: 320 over 1 term
Ford:  169 over 3/4 term
Nixon: 346 over 1 1/4 terms
Johnson: 325 over 1 1/2 terms
Kennedy: 214 over 1/2 term
Eisenhower: 481 over 2 terms
Truman: 893 over 1 3/4 terms
FDR: 9537 over 3 1/4 terms

The award for Greatest American Dictator goes to FDR.  That shouldn't be a surprise.  Runner up is Truman.  Honorable mentions for Reagan for being the leader over the last 50 years and Carter for racking up an impressive 320 over just one term. 

The Hero of Liberty award goes to Barrack Hussein Obama for only having 269 over two terms. Honorable mention for George HW Bush for having a low count over just one term. 

[Grant]

One alarming thing about the slate of orders is the immediate reversals of policy. While I generally agree that Trump's policies should be reversed, I'm worried it might become a thing. Governments are not supposed to completely undo as much of their predecessor's work the moment they get into power. While it would be rough domestically, it makes sustained foreign policy impossible.

The lesson is that if you don't want your policies immediately reversed by the next president, make it a public law.  Go through Congress. 

[LetterRip]

COVID-19 are all defense of public health.  So are rules that should have been done by CDC at the start of the pandemic.  I consider undoing incompetence of Trump appointees essentially the same as undoing Trump EO's, so I can revise my statement if you like.  He is not using the EO's to contravene congress or for tyranny.

The debt EO's are part of the pandemic-if people are required to limit their economic activity by law it will impact the economy and ha e to be rectified.

Inequality resulting in the massive nationwide protests is an emergency especially when it leads people to increase exposure during a pandemic.

[Grant]

  He is not using the EO's to contravene congress or for tyranny.

Meh.  I could probably nitpick this a little. 

The Paris Agreement was always something of a contravention of Congress. 

Freezing federal loan payments is something that would be better served by public law.

Same goes for SNAP expansion and maybe a couple other things. 

He's within his powers.  It's not illegal.  The question is whether some of these things would be better done through Congress. 

Inequality resulting in the massive nationwide protests is an emergency especially when it leads people to increase exposure during a pandemic.

Wut? 

[LetterRip]

SNAP expansion is pandemic related.  Same with loan freezing.

He is preventing bankruptcies caused by the pandemic and the previous administrations failure to act.  I'm sure congress will address issues but it takes a while to get the freshman up to speed on most issues and the bankruptcies are imminent due to failures of the previous administration.

Paris agreement must be ratified by congress.

Showing a willingness to address the issues raised by the protests will reduce their likelihood.

[TheDrake]

One alarming thing about the slate of orders is the immediate reversals of policy. While I generally agree that Trump's policies should be reversed, I'm worried it might become a thing. Governments are not supposed to completely undo as much of their predecessor's work the moment they get into power. While it would be rough domestically, it makes sustained foreign policy impossible.

So two wrongs don't make a right? I'm not sure if it matters that you unravel your predecessors work in 3 months or 3 weeks. The fundamental problem is how much power the Congress has ceded. But when McConnel can procedurally hold the Senate hostage under rules agreements, and the filibuster makes legislation impossible, I'm not sure what else can be done other than to test the boundaries in the courts. Already Biden's reversal of deportation policy is under injunction. I won't be surprised to find other orders put into the courts, and that some of them will be reversed. The biggest thing I wonder about is whether with such rapid orders, could the Biden team have followed all necessary procedures? I know that tripped Trump up multiple times. Of course the Biden team isn't full of outsider doofuses who don't even know what the rules are.

[Fenring]

Of course the Biden team isn't full of outsider doofuses who don't even know what the rules are.

In terms of EO's it feels to me like everyone is outsider doofuses who don't know what the rules are, because there are no clear rules. Basically make an EO, and see if it sticks, is the rule. To be fair that's sort of consistent with the rest of the legal system, where you know something is illegal because you got sued and a court said you can't do that.

[NobleHunter]

So two wrongs don't make a right? I'm not sure if it matters that you unravel your predecessors work in 3 months or 3 weeks. The fundamental problem is how much power the Congress has ceded. But when McConnel can procedurally hold the Senate hostage under rules agreements, and the filibuster makes legislation impossible, I'm not sure what else can be done other than to test the boundaries in the courts. Already Biden's reversal of deportation policy is under injunction. I won't be surprised to find other orders put into the courts, and that some of them will be reversed. The biggest thing I wonder about is whether with such rapid orders, could the Biden team have followed all necessary procedures? I know that tripped Trump up multiple times. Of course the Biden team isn't full of outsider doofuses who don't even know what the rules are.

In general, there should be respect for work already done or fights already lost, even in this particular case there's a need to undo four years of bad governance. Certainly the problem could be ameliorated by going through Congress where possible but there's policies which are solely under the authority of the executive and this kind of see-saw is still detrimental.

I'm also worried that this kind of thwarting will contaminate our Parliament which does not can't even hope to have a stubborn legislature refusing to bend to the new administration's desire to re-litigate lost battles.

[TheDrake]

Of course the Biden team isn't full of outsider doofuses who don't even know what the rules are.

In terms of EO's it feels to me like everyone is outsider doofuses who don't know what the rules are, because there are no clear rules. Basically make an EO, and see if it sticks, is the rule. To be fair that's sort of consistent with the rest of the legal system, where you know something is illegal because you got sued and a court said you can't do that.

For constitutionality, I agree. I'm talking specifically about the Administrative Procedure Act. This requires certain periods for public comment, etc. It is not ambiguous. Further evidence is how they had to rewrite their "Muslim ban" multiple times. An insider doing these things would have known how to get the effect they wanted without running afoul of as many legal challenges. They would have written the final version as the first draft. In other words, they know how to work the system. It doesn't make it morally superior or wrong, just that they know the rules of the game.

[TheDeamon]

In December 10 meeting (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics/joe-biden-audio-civil-rights-leaders/index.html) Biden also said that he'd roll back everything Trump did with executive authority, but he'd not go further and violate the constitution.

Restoration of DACA protections isn't a violation of the Constitution? Resumption of the litigation of that should be fun.

[TheDrake]

Considering that the original DACA held up under repeated court challenges, I don't know why this is different.

[DonaldD]

Joe Biden in October 2020

I have this strange notion, we are a democracy ... If you can't get the votes ... you can't [legislate] by executive order unless you're a dictator.  We're a democracy.  We need Consensus.

Video

I just decided to look back at the source of this thread - why, I couldn't tell you - and surprise, surprise, the quote above is a manipulated misrepresentation.  I expect Lloyd wasn't lying and just took the quote verbatim from the tweet, and did not invest the time in listening to the Biden interview.  But still, one should be careful about blindly repeating partisan sources without double and triple checking the accuracy.

Q: So there is not going to be any delay on the tax increases?

Biden: No, well... I gotta get the votes... I gotta get the votes... that's why, you know, I... the one thing that I - I have this strange notion. We are a democracy.  Some of my Republican friends and some of my Democratic friends even occasionally say "well, if you can't get the votes, by executive order you're gonna do something".  Things you can't do by executive order unless you're a dictator. We're a democracy.  We need consensus.

Lloyd's quoted section makes no distinction between what Biden was saying and what he was paraphrasing others as having said, and there is nothing in that quote suggesting that Biden was characterizing what was paraphrased.

There's also nothing to suggest he was responding to a very specific question - one about tax increases.  I'm not going to suggest those on the left don't mischaracterize in the same way, but this is a clear case of editing with the intent to misrepresent , and Lloyd fell for it.

Now, maybe I'm wrong - maybe Biden has tried to force through tax increases via executive order, or even things that are clearly outside the executive's purview.  I don't think so - but regardless, that was a whole bunch of misrepresentation to kick off the thread.

[DonaldD]

I counted about 36 executive orders.  I only counted 11 that were related to undoing Trump EOs or policies.  They include:

What is interesting about this list is that Biden openly campaigned on taking the majority of these actions, either "on day one" or "I will direct..." or "I will take executive action to".  They were not a secret.  The attempt now to denigrate him based on the number is weird.  But taken in conjunction with the misrepresentation of Biden's town hall comment, as Lloyd did in the OP, and as the Republican members of Congress are now also openly doing as well, is clearly an attempt to win political points by lying about Biden's statements and goals.

If the Republicans, instead of lying, had limited themselves to whining about comity or unity, that would be one thing (although compromising on binary choices is not always a possibility, and whining about reversing unilateral Trump orders is especially rich).  But the need to openly lie about Biden, instead of being confident in the correctness of their own positions, is telling.

[msquared]

Lets compare how the 2 presidents responded to emergencies in states that did not vote for them.

Trump wants governor's of stricken states to say good things about him before he sends them funds.

Biden sends the funds because people are in need.

Telling.

[rightleft22]

Lets compare how the 2 presidents responded to emergencies in states that did not vote for them.

Trump wants governor's of stricken states to say good things about him before he sends them funds.

Biden sends the funds because people are in need.

Telling.

Biden is a very clever Dictator

[TheDrake]

I think more clearly different is the tone and timing.

The Biden administration for now is focusing on "ensuring that the millions of people across Texas who are impacted by the storm get the relief they need," press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters. "Clearly as there are investments in the future forms of energy across the country they'll need to plan for inclement weather, but I think that's a discussion and conversation that’s a little bit down the road.”

I tend to think that the administration, sooner or later, will use this to try and get Texas under federal regulation. But Biden is smart enough not to use twitter to bash a Governor while millions of Americans are in crisis. Even when that time comes, I doubt Biden puts himself in the center of it. He'll use proxies in the House to do so, friendly Governors, possibly the Energy secretary. Not very dictator-like, at least in any typical way.

PS. He probably won't come out with a statement like "rake the forest" either. Maybe Texas needs to think about wrapping their pipes sort of thing.

[TheDeamon]

Lets compare how the 2 presidents responded to emergencies in states that did not vote for them.

Trump wants governor's of stricken states to say good things about him before he sends them funds.

Biden sends the funds because people are in need.

Telling.

Biden also made administrative actions which hurt mainly areas that voted Trump. He didn't need to play with Covid resources to do that. Besides which most of the covid relief is targeting areas that voted Biden (Urban population centers) so it is against his interest to play with that. Idaho as a whole may not care for Biden, but Boise has plenty of Democrat voters that want help.

[msquared]

Who is talking about Covid resources?  We are talking about FEMA funds and action.

Biden EO hurt oil and gas companies and employees.  He campaigned on those actions, so he is just keeping campaign promises.

There are going to be winners and losers. In the past Oil/gas/coal have been picked as the winners. Now it is solar/wind/renewables and the old stand bys are crying that is not fair when they are ignoring all of the special rules/tax breaks/grants and other benefits they already get.

[TheDrake]

When you can't make an on topic point, just wander off and make some other random point that makes your political enemy look bad. I'll try to focus up. Trump aid to California for wildfires, Biden aid to Texas for deep freeze. Want to compare and contrast those, Daemon, or just continue on criticizing Biden for sending covid aid to the places with the most people and strain on their hospitals, which isn't easy to criticize on the face of it?

[TheDeamon]

When you can't make an on topic point, just wander off and make some other random point that makes your political enemy look bad. I'll try to focus up. Trump aid to California for wildfires, Biden aid to Texas for deep freeze. Want to compare and contrast those, Daemon, or just continue on criticizing Biden for sending covid aid to the places with the most people and strain on their hospitals, which isn't easy to criticize on the face of it?

Trump aid to California for wildfires can easily be pointed at many of the areas impacted being largely rural portions of California, regions which vote Republican.

Likewise in Texas, many of the areas hardest hit are urban areas unsurprisingly. Areas which tend to vote Democrat. Biden extending the middle finger to the people of Austin other metro areas isn't going to play well in their plan to turn Texas into a Democrat strong-hold once again.

The devil is in the details here, there are political reasons for them to do things or not do things.

That and Trump was an ego-maniac who was needlessly petty, using him as a yardstick on what to do is a very bad bar to compare against.

[oldbrian]

That and Trump was an ego-maniac who was needlessly petty, using him as a yardstick on what to do is a very bad bar to compare against.

and yet, 74 million people are willing to burn down the country in order to get him back in office...

[TheDeamon]

That and Trump was an ego-maniac who was needlessly petty, using him as a yardstick on what to do is a very bad bar to compare against.

and yet, 74 million people are willing to burn down the country in order to get him back in office...

Not true. 74 Million people felt Trump was preferable to Biden in November.

They probably still do.  You might have about half of them that are willing to burn the country down for Trump but that's likely an over-reach as well.

More likely many of the "burn it down" crowd aren't actually even pro-Trump as you're wanting to frame. Rather they're simply anti-Biden and Democratic Party control for various reasons. Give them anyone to rally around in that goal, and you're golden. It doesn't have to be Trump, many of them would prefer an alternative, but the GOP is feckless at the best of times to start with.

[TheDrake]

That and Trump was an ego-maniac who was needlessly petty, using him as a yardstick on what to do is a very bad bar to compare against.

and yet, 74 million people are willing to burn down the country in order to get him back in office...

Not true. 74 Million people felt Trump was preferable to Biden in November.

They probably still do.  You might have about half of them that are willing to burn the country down for Trump but that's likely an over-reach as well.

More likely many of the "burn it down" crowd aren't actually even pro-Trump as you're wanting to frame. Rather they're simply anti-Biden and Democratic Party control for various reasons. Give them anyone to rally around in that goal, and you're golden. It doesn't have to be Trump, many of them would prefer an alternative, but the GOP is feckless at the best of times to start with.

And yet Trump might still win the primary, and what would that say? 40 million ish love Trump more than hating Democrats, neh?