So often these days, people look first to government to 'solve' any and all problems or perceived problems. We also blame government whenever anything bad happens in our lives. After all, if government can solve all our problems and yet we still have problems, it must - obviously - be the government's fault.
Even today, as we look at the presidential campaign, we have candidates who are promising to solve all our problems and all it takes to do so is to elect them. Nothing could be further from the truth, but campaigns are not about truth so much as they are about persuasion.
I came across this article, "A President, Not a Savior:"
"What moved Barack Obama to seek the presidency was "the basic idea of empathy" and the notion that if "we see somebody down and out ... we care for them." Republican John McCain explained that he was running "to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their self-interest."
Noble sentiments, to be sure, but in the original constitutional scheme, the president was neither Empath-in-Chief nor a national life coach. His role was to faithfully execute the laws, defend the country from attack, and check Congress with the veto power whenever it exceeded its constitutional bounds."
It explains our unconstitutional expectations of the office holder - which also explains why the candidates are making unconstitutional promises.
My question, though, is this: if we know the nation's expectations of this office holder are unconstitutional, what do we do about it?