One thing I like about the way Great Britain does thing, that I think is superior to the U.S, is the way members of parliament get to ruthlessly question the Prime Minister.
With the President of the U.S, it seems his only public interaction with Congress is during the State of the Union address. And he isn’t having a conversation with them to explain himself, he merely has to give a well rehearsed speech.
Wouldn’t it be better if the President would have to periodically answer impromptu questions put to him by members of Congress?
I don’t believe for a second that our current President Bush would be able to survive such an ordeal.
I think it would be an excellent test of leadership.
I’d like to see an American equvilent of “PMQT”, but I believe that (with the exception of LBJ, and, possibly, Nixon), none of our Presidents over the last 50 years have been right for it. The position of PM in “PMQT” requires an ability for off-the-cuff wit and thinking on your feet that isn’t part of the design for the office. Moreover, the job of “leader of the opposition” requires the same sort of style, and the probable player of that role in the US (Pelosi) doesn’t strike me as being right for the job.
Not to mention the fact that all of the potential questioners are not of the Tim Russert mileu, but much more vicious and partizan who turns questions into ambushes.
I’m sure Tony Blair doesn’t like being berated by the opposition, but its something he has to do anyway. If you can’t stand the heat, you aren’t suited for the job.
I love watching the PMQ on C-SPAN, whenever I find it. I can never seem to figure out when it’s aired, though. Anyone know if it’s on a regular time.
Given that the Vice President has few official duties specified in the Constitution, I think this job would be perfect for him, if the President prefers to continually duck the Congress.
[sidenote] - I love PMQT and watch it whenever I can (is Parliament back from recess?). Certainly the current prime minister is very capable of speaking extemporaneously and appears to have a lot of information available. He also seems to have a lot of fun with it. It would be nice if we could have something like that here, even if it were only between congressional leaders.
[/sidenote]
I think the President would never do this since it would imply the President could answer to the Congress on an issue, thus breaking the separation of branches of government. I also see if it were to happen, a lot of questions that most (and I guess I would say all) would not be able to handle without their handlers and spin doctors.
That said, I would love to see it happen in some forum so that a discussion between the two branches could take place. I believe it would be great for the people and the government if the President and Minority leaders of the House and Senate could each ask questions.
Nawww, lets face it, it would become a giant Did too, Did not session because none of these people are gifted debaters.
It seems to me that there is no constitutional problem with requiring the Prez to answer questions put by the Congress. In fact, it is his constitutional duty to give them information “from time to time”. Right now that information is delivered in the form of a set speech. Moving to a Q&A format is as simple as passing a law defining the duty to provide information as a duty to answer questions.
I think it would be a valuable change. The President could be required to answer questions before the full Congress once a month and the VP could do so for the Senate on a weekly basis. ( When Congress is in session, naturally. ) With some experimentation we may even be able to come up with a feasible strict requirement so that questions must be answered directly instead of merely danced around. Perhaps allowing the Member to repeat the question until a satisfactory answer is provided. “Mr President, will you offer a budget proposal that fully funds the education initiative you talk so much about? Yes or no this time, Mr President.”
The problem with press conferences is that they can be avoided and when held they can be, and are, stage managed. The President’s people decide who gets to ask questions and can ensure anyone asking a hardball question will never get a chance to ask another. Besides there is a difference between having your paid liar tell a lie and telling it yourself. The latter situation gives your political opponents ammunition. “The President claims to want to leave no child behind but he admits he won’t fully fund education!” ( Cut to video of the question above and the president answering “No.” ) OR “The President stated that he would fully fund education but his own budget proposal shows him to be a liar.” Neither option is attractive and this process could well encourage the White House to be more honest. I hope we can all agree that’s a worthy goal.
Muldoon, I’m not thinking of wit with Nixon, but, rather, the ability to respond to questions off-the-cuff. Moreover, I highly doubt that your pick of Clinton would work, as something like PMQT requires someone with commital to issues.
Just a small clarification here–in a parliamentary system, such as the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other Commonwealth countries have, Question Period is for members of the Opposition to ask questions of the Government–that is, the party that holds the most seats in the House of Commons.
Sometimes these questions are asked of the Prime Minister, who was elected to the House of Commons, and happens to be the leader of the party in power. Other times, questions are asked of other ministers, or of other members. But questions are not asked of the head of state.
In Commonwealth countries, the head of state is the Queen. In the United States, the head of state is the President. But the Prime Minister is more like the American who is the leader of the party holding a majority in the House of Representatives.
If there was a Question Period like that of the Commonwealth countries in the United States, then it would have to take place in the House of Representatives (similar to the Commonwealth countries’ House of Commons). The questions would be addressed to the majority party in the House (similar to the Government). The questions could be addressed to the majority party leader, or to other House members of the majority party. But just as Opposition members in Commonwealth countries cannot ask question of the Queen in Question Period (she’s not elected to the Commons), so the minority party members of the House of Representatives could not ask questions of the President (who may have been elected, but not to the House).
Now, whether the President or the Queen should be answering questions from Houses or Senates or the people, is another matter entirely. The fact is that Question Period, as practiced in Commonwealth countries, is not designed to be a forum for questions to be posed to the head of state.
Yes, but the Queen has very little actual power in Commonwealth countries. She is a figurehead and IMHO a very effective way of avoiding having a president. So asking her question about the New Zealand Labour parties position on G.E would be just silly. The oppositions ability to ask the P.M or minister in question makes them more accountable and makes them work for their money (with added bonus of just being entertaining sometimes)
Presumably the American president has more relevancy then the Queen (one would hope), but he seems to get by with little tough questioning to back up his decisions.
(oh and not all Westminster systams have 2 Houses)
Well, when it comes to Pres authority, domestically the Pres doesnt have much beyond trying to drive the agenda and all that. The Pres’es main area of authority (for good or bad) is foreign affairs. This is unfortunately the direction our seperation of powers is progressing; congress gets domestic, the Pres gets foreign. Bad situation when we need the one to look after the other in both areas.
But the poster was right; the PM in parliamentary systems is equivalent to our Speaker of the House, not the Pres. Though I disagree that it would take place in the Senate, since the PMQT takes place in the house of Commons (our House of Reps), not Lords (our Senate).
No that is not entirely correct. Our P.M has all the duties of a head of state, she just doesn’t get to wear the crown. She (and her party) is where the buck stops both internationaly and domesticaly, the Queen isn’t jumping in anytime soon.
And Question time works very well with all the members in just the one house.
