Pluralizing Executive Authority (Managing the Proprietary Risk Proportion)
Immediately following his 2014, mid-term realignment, the president said he will be using executive authority. His authority to conform policy to “meet the needs of the American people” (legitimacy by the numbers) is good until congress asserts its authority, essentially conforming their consent “to” the governed, which corrupts the natural legitimacy of the republican form.
The Republican, congressional majority, notice, regards President Obama’s executive action to be too aggressive–existing without the consent of the governed, but actually, this authority is more passive than aggressive, conforming to THE LAW of large numbers on demand. Ironically, this consolidation of power is not the result of consolidated power but the built-in pluralism (checks and balances) of the American political system.
Notice that as the administration of power becomes more systematically pluralized the more agressively passive (peacefully productive) it is, appealing to the authority (the tolerance) of our better nature, yielding strength (virtue) from the commonly divisible weakness of a passive resistance, naturally existing in large numbers, creatively determined on demand.
With power modeled to be more diffused than monopolized, the administration of power naturally convects the consent of the governed. Since conservatives are sure risk should be authored from the top down to ensure socio-economic stability, however, any authority that regulates the way they use their property lacks propriety, unnaturally limiting the pursuit of happiness (THE utility guaranteed by the Constitution) by means of self-determination (by consent of the governed).
Over time new measures are created to confirm conformity by the numbers (natural law), which naturally yields to stability (natural order) by aggressing the passive resistance. By creating it on demand, the resistance (the risk) naturally yields to THE LAW (the passive consent) of large numbers, which is the natural legitimacy of the goverened (the propriety of aggressive risk management) in the republican form.
At the time of the American Revolution there were essentially two risk-management models in operation, elitist and pluralist. As capitalism emerged with the value of an on-demand legitimacy (existing by the natural law of large numbers) the republican form of government emerged (so that consent occurs with self-determination from the top down). To control for the law of large numbers, government has been made to routinely manage the natural risk (the consent of the governed) with a bureaucratic model.
The two, dominant attributes of power converged. Elitist and pluralist attributes are combined to control for the risk. Now, with the bureaucratic model well established as The Iron Law of Oligarchy, it’s a matter of arguing over the right combination to manage the increasing, proprietary risk proportion.
Conservatives argue that the bureaucratic model is unwieldy, meaning that it wields too much power, which is naturally consistent with THE LAW of large numbers, resulting in the rule of law, but not necessarily determined by economic success (the accumulation of dollar votes in large numbers). The way to deal with this unwieldy, out-of-control executive authority (ochlocracy) is economics–cut its funding.
Naturally, using the law of large numbers, conservatives deal with the resistance by arguing the utility of a regressive tax burden: the flat tax, for example, and the “reduced corporate tax.” While they say it will increase demand (empower the free market by creating jobs, which reduces the need for government), it really reduces demand. A more regressive burden cuts government without reducing the demand for it, which aggresses the resistance, otherwise made more passive by yielding to the demands (the pluralistic attributes) of a regulatory authority utilized to exist the law (the natural monopoly) of large numbers (naturally yielding to the consent of the governed).
When the president says he is going to utilize “existing authorities” he is saying the bureaucracy will be utilized to conform government (in the republican form) to the consent of the governed. For conservatives this is an impeachable offense because it creates a comparative dialectic (the method science uses to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses), resulting in a real choice (aka “objective reality”) that creates conformity on demand.
(See “The Bureaucratic Model of Power and Political-Economy” by Griffith E. Lighton Jr. in the archives of the University of Louisville Library.)