Twelve years have passed since the first examination of how Barack Obama’s Chicago political education shaped his approach to executive power. The analysis remains relevant today as Democrats suddenly discover constitutional limitations on presidential authority.
Obama’s political formation occurred under the influence of Harold Washington, Chicago’s first black mayor. Washington’s tenure offers a revealing case study in how progressives justify executive overreach. Elected with support from reform-minded activists, Washington immediately faced opposition from the Democratic machine, particularly white ethnic Democrats who controlled the city council. Rather than build consensus, Washington chose confrontation, pushing the boundaries of executive authority during what became known as the “Council Wars.”
Washington eventually secured a council majority when Luis Gutiérrez won a special election, but died of a heart attack before fully exercising his newfound power. Obama absorbed two critical lessons from this episode. First, political opposition could be dismissed as rooted in racism or corruption rather than legitimate policy disagreements. Second, executives must act swiftly and unilaterally before circumstances prevent them from doing so.
These lessons manifested throughout Obama’s presidency. He rammed through Obamacare on a strictly partisan vote, fundamentally restructuring the nation’s healthcare system with legislation so poorly constructed it requires massive subsidies to function more than a decade later. He implemented Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and other immigration policies through executive fiat, bypassing Congress entirely. He refused to submit the Iran nuclear deal to the Senate for constitutionally required ratification, knowing it would fail.
Obama campaigned on transcending political divisions and delivering necessary reforms. Senator Joe Lieberman later noted that Obama possessed unique credibility to tackle entitlement reform, an opportunity he squandered. Instead, Obama retreated to conventional liberal policies and forced them through via his self-described “pen and phone” strategy.
Democrats celebrated this dirigiste, quasi-dictatorial approach. The Tea Party movement emerged specifically to oppose it, reminding Americans that the Constitution established checks and balances on executive power for good reason. Democrats and their media allies predictably labeled this constitutional objection as racism.
The irony is now complete. Democrats march in “No Kings” protests and denounce President Trump’s supposed authoritarianism, despite the fact that Trump’s executive actions have consistently been vindicated by the courts. These judicial victories occurred long before Trump appointed enough judges to establish a conservative, originalist majority on the federal bench.
It would be encouraging to see Democrats embrace the Tea Party’s insistence on constitutional limits for presidents. Unfortunately, this newfound devotion to constitutional restraint appears entirely selective and contingent on which party controls the White House.
The Democratic Party’s recent nomination of a socialist candidate in New York who promises expanded government control over grocery prices, elimination of magnet schools, and other intrusive policies demonstrates that the left’s objection is not to executive overreach itself. Their objection is simply to executive power wielded by anyone other than themselves.
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional governance. The Constitution does not exist to empower the correct party while restraining the incorrect one. It establishes limits on all governmental power regardless of who exercises it. Either executive overreach is problematic or it is not. Democrats cannot have it both ways.
The Obama precedent established dangerous norms that transcend partisan advantage. When presidents govern through executive action rather than legislative compromise, they undermine the constitutional structure and invite retaliation in kind. Democrats who cheered Obama’s unilateral actions forfeited their credibility to complain about executive power. Their current protests ring hollow because everyone recognizes them as purely tactical rather than principled.
Constitutional government requires consistency. The left’s selective outrage reveals that their true commitment is not to limiting executive power but to ensuring their preferred policies prevail by any means necessary.