Since the beginning people have thought of the president as having king-like powers. All you have to do is read the Constitution to see that isn’t so. The congress holds the real power in this country, and as can be seen by recent events, the president has very little say without cooperation from them. This isn’t even as bad as it can get, congress has just waved off spending increases, they could cut them substantially if they wanted to. Even in terms of foreign policy where the president has the greatest strength it’s nothing but words when the congress controls the purse strings.
That was when they told him about the lizard people.
I generally agree. The President sets an agenda and appoints people. It is all delegated. Eventually to a civil service bureaucracy. And the civil service people are subject to the laws of inertia.
to put it another way: The American people, as whole, figured out a long time ago that a divided government can’t cause too much trouble. That’s why this has been the preferred situation for the last few decades.
Each of the last two Presidents has instituted one major change: Bush invaded Iraq and Obama pushed through Obamacare. These two policies eventually sent each man’s approval ratings into the toilet.
Nobody wants change. Wise politicians adhere to Prince Metternich: “Govern and change nothing”.
Well, there was a president who wanted to stop the shadowy forces that really run our government.
He was, of course, assassinated, as per the order of the very shadows which we sought to bring to light.
I don’t expect anyone to test them again any time soon.
For a lot of reasons built into the process, the 2 people we get to vote on for President are already pre-destined to keep things fundamentally the same. If they weren’t so inclined, they wouldn’t get anywhere near being the final party candidate.
“Secret Government” makes the whole thing sound diabolical.
It would be more accurate to say that city, state and federal governments usually have near-permanent bureaucracies that do most of the work of governing, and these bureaucracies don’t change personnel or policies very much no matter who’s nominally in charge.
The State Department and the Justice Department are largely run by lifers who weren’t appointed by any Presdient, and don’t feel any particular loyalty to the President or whomever he’s appointed to the Cabinet. Hence, a far-left President OR a far-right President will often find he can’t really control departments that are SUPPOSED to answer to him.
I hadn’t heard that, but it wouldn’t be surprising.
Bill Clinton supposedly raged after his first meeting with his his top economic advisors, “You mean all our plans depend on the whims of a bunch of BOND TRADERS???”
Every President finds out quickly that he isn’t nearly as powerful as he thought or hoped he’d be.
People talk about change, but they have a remarkable record of re-electing incumbents.
Massachusetts voters who claimed to want change voted for Ted Kennedy without hesitation every 6 years.
South Carolina conservatives who claimed to want change kept re-electing Strom Thurmond.
What this suggests is that each voter thinks, “I want those OTHER states to change their representatives. OUR guys are just great.”
Radio commentator Mark Steyn likes to say that, in every European nation, there are really only two political factions:
-
The Slightly Left of Center Party
-
The Slightly Right of the Slightly Left of Center Party
Whetehr you vote Labour or Tory, Social Democrat or Christian Democrat, you’re choosing between two guys who come from the same economic and educational backgrounds, who share the same basic beliefs and attitudes, and will follow pretty similar policies. The “left wing” candidate isn’t likely to nationalize any new industries, and the “right wing” candidate isn’t going to slash any established socialist programs.
In the end, the candidate for Party 1 is going to spend a lot of time reassuring big business that not much is really going to change, and the candidate of Party 2 is going to spend a lot of time reassuring voters that there won’t be MUCH austerity, that they’ll simply run the socialist programs more efficiently than the Socialists.
It’s not so different here. Does anyone think that a Romney Cabinet would have been filled with right-wing firebrands? Of course not!
I believe the 2016 election will pit Jeb Bush against Hillary Clinton. Does ANYONE expect the face of the Federal government to change much under EITHER of them?
Not at all.