Choosing the American President.

Great Debates
41

True that the news does this. But no one has ever made any secret of the fact that pundits speculate, and reporters find news where they can. If your job is to be a political reporter, then finding someone who’s expressing an interest in running for public office, the higher the better, or some mope who’s prepared to express an opinion about who the parties’ prospective candidates will likely be, is your bread and butter.

Attempting to deconstruct what Anthony Scalia had to say about the application of an unclear clause in some federal code pales by comparison – even though his SCOTUS majority opinion is “hard news” and “what Obama/Hilary/McCain’s recent speeches mean for their presidential bids” is pure speculation.

And for that matter, since a Parliamentary government can fall at any time, would it not be equally fair to say that at least our system gives a respite from having to speculate on the next national leader? Granted it’s unlikely the Liberals and NDP will pick up enough disaffected Tory votes to topple Harper tomorrow, it could happen. Barring impeachment, we’ve got Bush until Jan. 20, 2009.

42

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Granted it’s unlikely the Liberals and NDP will pick up enough disaffected Tory votes to topple Harper tomorrow, it could happen. Barring impeachment, we’ve got Bush until Jan. 20, 2009.
[/QUOTE]

To be fair to my opponents in this debate, Harper has a minority government whixh means even if he has the support of all his conservative MPs , his government could fail on any bill presented to parliament. Ignoring the specific conditions applicable to a minority government, I would suggest that Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Chretien, Mulroney and even Martin as party leaders, prime ministers or prospective prime ministers were ousted by public opinion and their own party .

I believe a leader needs to have the support of at least of his own party in order to project his policies with some credibility. Enemies of the state, or just the government may take some comfort in all the criticism of the government, but they have to contend with the fact that the projection of policy by the government does have significant support.

I wouldn’t have brought up this issue except for recent events. Bush decided, without any support from elected officials to increase the number of troops in Iraq. It seems to me that even prominent members of** his own party** do not support this move. It appears to me that Bush is on his own, relying on his constitutional power to do whatever he wants because no one can thwart him for the next two years.

Sure, in theory congress can with hold the money for this adventure. But in reality they can’t, because bouncing the paychecks of the troops is imperative to avoid.

Congress can hold all kinds of inquries, enlighten the people to how stupid Bush is and how ridiculous the Iraq troop increase is, and given the truth comes out, but they are powerless to stop this idiocy.

I’ve seen a lot of Bush bashing on this board. But now I see that we’ve come to a situation where Bush is even opposed by his own party and there is no recourse to stop him . At this point, criticism appears totally useless.

I admire a leader who projects with determination and his own perception of right and wrong. I admire Bush in that regard. I admire American presidents of both parties. But sometimes you have to rescue leaders from misguided policies which are best determined by** both** popular support and party.

For now, we are all helpless with the misguided direction that Bush is taking us. It seems clear to me that he’s fucked up big time and the only reason he can continue is because the constitution virtually allows him to go against the will of the people.

If I’m wrong then I can blame all you Americans for the bullshit that Bush imposed on Iraq. As a Canadian, I see no responsibility on my behalf for the bullshit in Iraq and the 3000 plus Americans and 100s of thousands Iraqi lives lost in Bush’s pursuit of destroying islamist terrorism and a stable government in Iraq.

43

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I wouldn’t have brought up this issue except for recent events. Bush decided, without any support from elected officials to increase the number of troops in Iraq. It seems to me that even prominent members of** his own party** do not support this move. It appears to me that Bush is on his own, relying on his constitutional power to do whatever he wants because no one can thwart him for the next two years.
[/quote]

Yes, he’s relying on his constitutional power as commander-in-chief to do this. However, Congress has the power to thwart his will by refusing to appropriate money for this purpose.

That’s not how it works. It’s not a matter of military pay, but a matter of providing funds for the ongoing operations in Iraq. Congress did something similar at the end of the Vietnam War and we as a nation survived just fine.

And there is where you are wrong. If they don’t provide money for it, it stops.

Please provide proof that his own party opposes him. Sure, some members oppose him, but is there any evidence that the whole party does? Or even a majority? If there was this overwhelming opposition to the plan in Congress, Congress would not provide the money for the operation.

Again, Congress can express the will of the people. I think you are overestimating the number of Americans who want us out of Iraq immediately.

Yes, you are wrong and yes, you can blame all of us Americans in a sense. So what? I can tell you that most Americans pay very little attention to what Canadians think of us.

44

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Poor construction I admit, Excellent point Rickjay. What I meant was that every four years, we get to follow 2 years of media reports and speculations regarding the “race to the white house”. If one pays any attention to American news, you can’t miss it.
[/QUOTE]

But we also spend about 70% of the year hearing the U.S. media report on baseball scores; 100% of the year hearing them report gossip about Britney Spears; and at the local TV news level, 100% of the year reporting on car wrecks. 50% is, when you think about it, not really THAT much news time devoted to the most important political decision the country has to make.

Dutchman, I think you’re being inadventently obtuse in your comparison of the U.S. and Canadian systems here, and this quote proves it.

There’s nothing you’ve said about the U.S. system I can’t apply to the Canadian. Look at this quote above; you admit that the President, in fact, DOESN’T how unfettered power to continue the war, that Congress could stop him, but chooses not to for political reasons.

Explain to me, now, how that’s substantively different from the government as it was run under Brian Mulroney from about 1990 on. His policies were intensely unpopular after the honeymoon period of his re-election was over, phenomenally so, and indeed were unpopular among many PC supporters, as proven by the party’s complete implosion in 1993. His backbenchers COULD have stopped him, you know. The party’s membership COULD have forced a leadership review, as the Liberal Party did, with far less justification, to Jean Chretien. But none of them did that, for political reasons. So Mulroney ruled as majordomo for - why, just about two full years, just like George Bush will. Both men were subject to constitutionally enshrined checks and balances; both held on for a few years because those who could have done something did not possess the political will to do so.

Now, if you want to come back and nitpick, go right ahead, but the situations were, in fact, pretty much the same; an unpopular leader plowed ahead for two years despite general opposition because the legislature lacked the balls to stop him.

Are you SURE their system is really that much worse?

45

[QUOTE=Renob]
What you fail to appreciate is the system of checks-and-balances that we have in the U.S. We have three independent branches of government that have different functions and constantly check the power of other branches. The executive should not be forced to depend on the whims of the legislature for his tenure in office. Unless he commits a high crime or misdemeanor, he should continue in office. A “no confidence” vote would limit his independence and his ability to carry out his duties.

We, in general, like this type of government. We do not want our legislative body to be supreme. We want three independent branches.
[/QUOTE]
We, in general, are operating on inertia & ignorance. Really, tradition aside, what is gained from having an independent President?

Since the OP brought up W, let me say: On Mexican immigration, I agree more with Bush/Rove than with the dominant attitudes in either major party. I can sympathize with Bush’s grandiose plans for Iraq; but think he was a fool to go in as he did, on the false pretense that it would be over in a few years, when the people of his country have not the will to stay in there–& while his secretary of defense apparently thought light commando squads were the (& the only) wave of the future. It’s not really a matter of his will to wage war, it’s the country’s. And he doesn’t have the support to wage the war the way it would need to be waged to win. The monarchical model on which our government is based, with an independent single executive in charge of war, is rooted in medieval Europe & “the divine right of kings.” The system relies, to a degree not enough acknowledged, on the ostensible sacred legitimacy & thus trustworthiness of the executive. But even a medieval king could lose his power, not only to advance his agenda, but to hold his throne secure, if enough of his countrymen rejected his plans.

Giving a president more independence, or a freer hand, gives him the independence to head down a path found hateful by most of his countrymen. It gives him the freedom to fail. Without a great deal of respect for the presidency in the society, rarely can it give him the freedom to succeed at any project of great scale & commitment–even if it isn’t dangerous.

And that necessary quotient of respect, since the 1990’s, is gone–in breadth & in depth–& may never return. I don’t think it would matter if we went to a Canadian-style system; no US President in my lifetime will be able to wage a foreign war on the scale of Iraq for more than five years. I don’t think that’s necessarily even a good thing; it just is.

46

[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
We, in general, are operating on inertia & ignorance. Really, tradition aside, what is gained from having an independent President?
[/quote]

Having a counter-balance to an out-of-control legislature, for one. That’s pretty valuable in and of itself.

No, not quite. One, our executive is pretty far from medieval monarchs, even in terms of waging war. Part of the problem today is that the President has usurped some of the authority from the legislative branch. Congress no longer declares war, for instance. It merely “authorizes” military action. In the Founders’ formulation, the President would be commander-in-chief, but Congress would need to authorize military action and pay for it. That’s a good series of checks-and-balances. Two, would you rather have wars planned and waged by Congress? A single commander-in-chief is necessary to avoid war by committee, which would be disastrous.

And to say that the legitimacy of our president relies on the “divine right of kings” is completely wrong. The source of legitimacy for our executive resides, ultimately, in the people of the nation who indirectly elected him.

47

[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
We, in general, are operating on inertia & ignorance. Really, tradition aside, what is gained from having an independent President?

[/quote]

He’s one more check against the power of the legislators for one thing. For example it’s his job to appoint government officials and judges while the Senate can only confirm and the President can veto bills Congress wants made into laws if he doesn’t think they’re no good. As Commander & Chief of the armed forces he can make quick decisions when necessary to protect the security of the United States. What we gain from having an independent Executive Branch are checks and balances.

Monarchial model? Divine right of kings? No doubt some of the founding fathers are rolling in their graves! Our government is very different from most monarchies of the 19th century and before that I’m aware of. The Constitution outlines the powers of the Executive Branch and I don’t see anything in Article 2 about divine rights, unaccountability, or royalty. I’m not really sure where you’re coming from.

Marc

48

One more thing. The President of the United States is the only elected official representing the entire United States. Representatives only represent their individual districts and Senators represent their state. We are all the President’s constituents.

Marc

49

[QUOTE=Renob]
Having a counter-balance to an out-of-control legislature, for one. That’s pretty valuable in and of itself.
[/quote]

And the chances of having some hundred people ‘out of control’ versus having one man out of control and hungry for power are? :rolleyes:

Right. Something impossible to do in the parliamentary system. What use are all these fabulous checks and balances if they cannot prevent one man from usurping power?

Which is ridiculous. That kind of decision should be made by many, not by one guy.

Yeah. That really worked.

‘Planned and waged’ is different from ‘authorized’. Yes, it should be up to Congress and the Senate to approve such drastic action. When it’s approved, it’s then turned over to the commanders.

Who are rendered powerless to remove him should he turn out to be a bad deal. You can do a lot of damage to your nation and to the world in four years, as we’ve seen.

50

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
And the chances of having some hundred people ‘out of control’ versus having one man out of control and hungry for power are? :rolleyes:
[/quote]

Pretty good, actually. There are a variety of periods in our nation’s history where Congress could be, and has been, described as an “imperial Congress.”

One man did not usurp power. Over time Congress has basically ceded certain powers to the Presidency. It’s an ebb-and-flow thing, really. Look at the 1970’s, when Congress felt the Presidency was too powerful and took away much of its powers in the post-Watergate era. Then we had the 80’s where many felt Congress had too much power. Now we are arguably in an era where Congress has been too compliant towards the President. However, I think Congress may be moving to rectify that.

Sure it should. But the legislative branch has abdicated its responsibility.

Well, Congress still has control over the war in the sense that it must appropriate funds. The fact that it continues to do so points out that perhaps the war has some support among our legislators. It’s not as if Bush is raising money for the war separate of Congress.

If he’s criminal, we can impeach him. If he merely has bad ideas, then Congress can fail to pass his legislative agenda or fund his military actions. If he’s truly bad, we can fail to re-elect him. There are a lot of ways to thwart the will of a bad president.

What you fail to realize is that Bush has the support of quite a few Americans. During his term he was not a rogue president out there doing things against the will of most Americans. And when the folks didn’t like his policies, they voted in a new Congress. Sounds like the system is working perfectly to me.

51

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
And the chances of having some hundred people ‘out of control’ versus having one man out of control and hungry for power are? :rolleyes:

[/quote]

“Out of control” might have been a hyperbole but sometimes bad laws make it all the way through Congress. If the Congress wants to ram a bill down the President’s veto they still have the option to do so.

Usurped? Who has the President usurped?

If Congress “authorizes” military action then how can you say that the decision was made by one man?

Not at all. Impeachment is an option and Congress does have plenty of power when they choose to exercise it.

Marc

52

[QUOTE=RickJay]
But we also spend about 70% of the year hearing the U.S. media report on baseball scores; 100% of the year hearing them report gossip about Britney Spears; and at the local TV news level, 100% of the year reporting on car wrecks. 50% is, when you think about it, not really THAT much news time devoted to the most important political decision the country has to make.
[/quote]

Well I do ignore all that other noise, focusing on the front page and network news, ignoring the tabloids.

Yes the congress could stop him if they wanted. But I’m sure that we all realize that if they did, the next two years of the presidency would for sure be very unfortunate to imagine. The next two years would be a complete waste of time if the government failed to support the president’s iniative no matter how distasteful.

Bringing up Mulroney is a pretty good response on the surface. The differences whem comparing to Bush is that

Mulroney has a positive legacy. George Bush will be recognized as the most unfortunate presidency America has ever endured. Any Canadian prime minister, liberal or conservative of any tenure approaching 8 years will have lasting accomplisments that can ride out unpopularity. Most of all, even during the latter years of the Mulroney government, when his polled approval rating amongst the public dipped much lower than Bush’s he was given enough support of elected officials in his own party. His leadership in the declining years had legitimacy from elected officials. Foreign leaders recognized Mulroney as representing Canadians regardless of the polls. The only legitimacy George Bush now has is constitutional .
We as the people didn’t turf Mulroney. We didn’t turf our only female prime minister deliberately. We held the Progressive Conservative party responsible. We don’t put all our executive eggs in the basket of one man.
My problem with the American system emerged when it became apparent that a president with a vision and a conviction could hold his people and his party hostage. Americans do not support the administration on Iraq. Top members of “his party” do not support the latest iniative. A vote to apply funds doesn’t mean support for the iniative. We also now see that he’s at odds with a significant base in his party on the environment. In short, Bush is on his own, and the people and the elected officials can only stand by and wait for two years or **shut down ** the effective office of the presidency for two years. That is a long time without leadership.

Now I believe in leadership with vision and conviction. I actually admire Bush the man. I understand what his goals are. But he’s failed and we all know it. People like that need to be rescued and replaced just like Rumsfelt, (whom I admire as well). The parliamentary system requires support of elected officials who have a tripple eye on their current approval rating, loyalty to party and their approval by the prime minister. A president with a limited term and a serious conviction can take his country towards a constitutional crisis, embarrassing foreign policy for several years, or a useless period of several years of nothing.

Is the American system that much worse? I don’t think so. I actually think the US constitution is the best there is. I’m just very uncomfortable at the moment with a powerful world leader largely unchecked, whose policies and administration will be blamed on him alone, with no blame attached to the American people who provided the scenario for this travesty. I think there is room for improvement and elements of the British parliamentary system can help.

By the way, how many people can remember the historical list of house speakers in the House of Representatives. They wield great power over proposed legislation, yet they are only elected by a few Americans. Not that I’ve seen a problem there, but to have so much power based on their mandate and to get so little attention like presidential candidates seems somewhat not right.

53

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I’m just very uncomfortable at the moment with a powerful world leader largely unchecked, whose policies and administration will be blamed on him alone, with no blame attached to the American people who provided the scenario for this travesty.
[/QUOTE]
Oh no, nobody attaches blame to us at all. Why never once, on this board, have I seen anybody blame Americans for electing George W. Bush or for being too militaristic, too religious, too materialistic, or too dumb.

Oh wait a minute, I have seen those people blame us for those things–pretty much on a daily basis. I just haven’t cared.

54

So you want the President to be overridden by the “will of the people” whenever they clash, is that right? So the US would never have gone into WWII due to the Isolationism that was widespread in the US before Pearl Harbor. (This is just a crude example, there are other, better ones I’m sure.)

It means that no President can undertake any unpopular course of action, even if it is the right thing in the long run. That seems very shortsighted. The founding fathers agreed and set up a system where the various parts of gov’t had differing periods of election (from 2 years to lifetime appointment). If the entire gov’t was held responsible to recall elections every 6 months nothing longterm, costly, or unpopular would ever happen.

55

“Where yearly elections end, tyranny begins.”

56

[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
“Where yearly elections end, tyranny begins.”
[/QUOTE]

Ah yes, the United States of America, on the road to tyranny since 1787.

Marc

57

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
So what? They can’t recall an underperformer.

[/QUOTE]

Just ask Secretary Belknap