George F. Will has an opinion as to the "plebiscite policy of President Obama" but it falls quite short of perspective. I, too, have not been entirely appreciative of President Obama's terms, however, I suppose that has something to do with the absolute unaccountability of President Cheney during his past six terms as the Imperial President.
Let me explain that a bit...
A plebiscite government although first formulated to be of the People and for the People, was quickly altered into a Republic with no accountability to those who voted for such government, as well as steaming full ahead under their own ideals and reasoning (if one can even call it "reasoning") and is doubly troublesome as the present experiment has been tried before, under the hard handed Warren G. Harding, who set the inertia so much that the two following Presidents could NOT stop it... although President Coolidge didn't have the foresight to see where the country was being led nor the backbone it took to counter an unrealistic view from a criminally minded President, and of course President Hoover, who, before able to initiate any change was completely awash of the economic tsunami we call The Great Depression.
Critics of the referendum argue that voters in a referendum are more likely driven by transient whims than careful deliberation, or that they are not sufficiently informed to make decisions on complicated or technical issues. Also, voters might be swayed by strong personalities, propaganda and expensive advertising campaigns. James Madison argued that direct democracy is the "tyranny of the majority."
Some opposition to the referendum has arisen from its use by dictators such as Adolf hitler and Benito mussolini who, it is argued, used the plebiscite to disguise oppressive policies as populism. Hitler's use of plebiscites is argued as reason why, since World War 2, there has been no provision in Germany for the holding of referendums at the federal level.Now consider this sad note in history. Although after President Roosevelt, the term of the Presidency was constitutionally changed to two terms under the 22nd Amendment, there was another who gained the "presidency" under weak minded men and has served SIX terms, though as his position was never called the presidency. President Cheney began his terms under ex-President Nixon as an apprentice and quickly climbed to continue the Ford administration (pardoning the previous office a keystone of his power) and after President Carter's Great Term, President Cheney pushed for Reagan's election and won, continuing the Reagan two terms, as well as President Bush, sr., and again after President Clinton's two terms, held the official title of Vice President over Bush Junior's two terms, thereby holding the title of the most powerful Vice President in history due to his six terms as "President" (--1 President Ford, -- 2 Reagan, -- 1 President Bush, sr., and -- 2 Bush Junior) with his major goal and aim two fold in nature. Total control of the Presidential Offices over the US, and military strength unmatched in the world, neither of which being the primary goal of the US citizens. In fact, President Cheney can be held up and used as the ultimate of Plebiscite, Imperial Government, as he has eluded accountability, ever.
Sorry, Mr. Will, but, the idea of all power to the President is exactly why President Washington didn't want to sign the Constitution at all.