By consensus of history, a dozen or so of the first twenty U.S. Presidents, were fairly decent overall. You can pick isolated failings of any particular individual, but the general results were good. And there are many, many legislators from that era who’re widely respected.
I don’t think that Americans really want a monarchy. We like the British royal family precisely because they are over there and not really our headache costwise.
I prefer our system to the parliamentary system because under a parliamentary system things, laws can be passed quickly. Under our system, things take time to get done. Considering how ill-advised a lot of laws are, something that holds things up is a good thing.
The one change that I embrace is the abolishing of the electoral college. That would force presidential campaigns to be truly national instead of letting them pander to swing states.
I think that we have a tendency to over romanticize the earlier Presidents. While it is not a period of history in which I am particularly interested, nothing I’ve ever read indicates that they were any more honorable and trustworthy than our current leaders.
I think by any measure, the quality of presidents in the post-World War II era compares quite well, if not favorably, to a string of middling to lousy Presidents elected in the decades before and after Lincoln. In fact, for a while there, our electoral system was consistently producing pretty poor results, from Taylor to Buchanan, our system produced a downright lousy string of presidents.
And that’s not even to say a peep about the electoral system and the routine ethical lapses before the populist reforms of the early 20th century. Members of Congress routinely sold themselves out – not for campaign contributions – but for outright cash. Even the great Daniel Webster – an outstanding legislator – would have been thrown in jail today for what he did back then. Webster even wrote to the President of the Bank of the United States during a debate on the bank’s charter to remind his benefactor that “my retainer has not been received or refreshed as usual.” Is this the great era to which you wish to return? This is an idea case in which the view improves as one becomes more distant from it.
Plato pointed out the problem with democracy 2500 years ago: a leader can (falsely) generate fear, and be welcomed in as a hero who will keep folks safe, except that he is in reality a tyrant. I know Uncle Beer disagrees, but to a lot of us, this scenario sounds awfully familiar in recent years, and I have trouble understanding the self-described libertarians who can’t seem to see the danger in the intrusions on civil liberties that have taken place since 2000. Further, Rome showed us the danger inherent in a Bread and Circuses situation, which also sounds awfully familiar - only substitute low taxes on the wealthy and a pointless, useless war and further subsidies for the very rich.
It only takes one completely irresponsible president with a majority in Congress and staunch partisan politics for it to happen. The party loyalties and lobbying are what are killing democracy, and I don’t see any escape from either within a democracy.
Why do you think I’d disagree with that? It’s entirely plausible. Madison covered factionalism and the tyranny of the majority pretty well in Federalist #51. The guys who debated and wrote the documents with the operating instructions were well aware of Platos’ writings.
Now you’re leaving me confused? Haven’t you already argues that that can’t really happen in a representative democracy with a proper set of checks and balances between the branches? That’s what I got out of your post #16 of this thread.
I agree entirely with the first clause of this sentence. With the second clause, again, you seem to be making agruments contradictory of each other.
Heh. Yeah, I’d guess so. That ain’t really a very impressive percentage, is it? By way of an attempt to get by with that claim, lemme offer this dodge. I think reform of the politicking of the legislative branch, and the form and operations of the executive branch, is probably more important than reforming the politicking of the office of the presidency.
One problem with all of this political posturing is that virtually everyone is letting the voters off the hook. Everyone knew what they were getting with Dubya (not interested in hijacking the thread to discuss election fraud, that’s another issue) just like they knew what they were getting with Clinton. Bush was elected not once but twice, long after he showed the American people what a fuckup he is. Sure, he isn’t popular now, not by a long shot; the Red Staters should be shitting themselves right about now at the thought of the '06 elections. But why did so many people think that the platform he ran on would work? Faith based everything? Tax cuts would increase tax revenue? Massive deficits don’t count? Starve the beast? Patriot Act? What moron believes this? What idiot votes for a guy because he seems like a good guy to have a beer with?
Bush didn’t sell a line of shit to unwilling buyers. He sold what he knew people would eagerly buy. Morons.
I think you’d disagree that the *current * US administration threatens to become a tyranny and has taken a number of steps in that direction already. That’s the aspect to which I was referring.
No, because partisan politics make it such that we don’t really have checks and balances when a single party dominates both Executive and Legislative branches, and when the agenda of pushing the party far exceeds the agenda of actually serving the country well. In a lottery system, there would be no single agenda that would unify Congress beyond the individual beliefs of the CongressCritters. Certainly there would be no party politics to influence decisions against one’s better judgment. Right now that happens all the time. Between pushing the party agenda and pandering to their local constituents, I suspect most members of Congress vote for what they think would serve the country best about a quarter to a half of the time.
I hope this has clarified my points. Sorry I didn’t do a better job at first.
Gotcha. But I’m still not sure I’d disagree. I’m no fan of Bush and have been quite disappointed with him. I’m probably more of a Libertarian than you realize.
I don’t believe you’re using the correct terminology and that’s what I found confusing. Checks and balances I interpret to mean the devices built into the Constitution. Such as the veto power of Congress, a bi-cameral legislative body, legislative overrides of presidential vetos. I can see where you’re coming from, and in fact agree with you - in part. Particularly where Congress is charged with “advise and consent” duties over executive appointments and most notably in budget and revenue issues. Those two particular areas are particularly susceptible to circumventions when a single powerful political party holds majority in Congress and the presidency.
Again, I recommend Madison’s Federalist #51. Specifically:
That often? You are a starry-eyed optimist, aren’t you?
You are assuming that the will of the voters was what produced the President. This was almost certainly not true in 2000, and there are many indications that it didn’t happen in 2004. And I DO let the voters off the hook, when the election’s rigged.
You guys are not at liberty not to discuss election fraud, but when I see people remonstrating us for voting Bush in when I honestly feel that we DIDN’T vote him in, I think it’s a fair point to make. Consider it “point made” whether you disagree or not and move on if you like – I’m cool with that.
