I’m open to the idea that the answer is “no”, so don’t get the impression that I think the answer must be “yes” when I ask this question. I just mean to ask…
Suppose that a teddy bear had sat in the Oval Office for eight years instead of George W Bush. This teddy bear would have done all the things that teddy bears do, ie nothing. Would this have been better than having Bush as president?
A president who did literally nothing at all would likely find themselves impeached in short order. People demand responses, demand that they are best represented - few would say that complete inaction is the will of the people. At worst this hypothetical president Ted D. Bear is undemocratic.
As for whether George Bush would have been better off doing nothing - no. A total lack of response after 9/11 would just look like a stultified, shocked, weak, cowardly example of non-leadership. The exact nature of response is of course debatable, that there should have been one is not; Ted Bear would have committed political suicide maintaining complete silence after 9/11.
Can it least be a Care Bear so the Executive branch shows a smidgen of empathy?
Would Congress have gone through with it if his V.P. was Pedo Bear?
What would happen? Laws would either go into effect or suffer a pocket veto, something congress would adapt to. Agencies have acting heads and other holdovers from the previous administration, so the agencies’ day-to-day activities would go on. Even if the acting heads retired, there’s still a bureaucracy in place and it’s likely that the Federal government would persevere, albeit in a much more uncoordinated manner. What protocols are in place for the military to operate without direct orders? Can generals act on their own?
If we hadn’t invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, hadn’t cut taxes and thus maintained a budget surplus, hadn’t deregulated the mortgage and financial industries to the extent they were 2000-8, things would definitely be a lot better than they are now.
So you’re saying the presidency is unbearable?
bDOOM kssh
Depends if the Speaker was Chris Hansen!
As per Article II, the President is the commander-in-chief; as for how far this allows generals to act unilaterally I do not know. My guess is all major military actions need at least the executive nod, or else you risk having generals acting without authorisation and inviting military coup.
Assuming the bear was allowed to remain president (and wasn’t impeached or declared unable to preform his/her duties, in which case Chaney would have been president…VERY bad), I’d have to go with yes, over all. 9/11 would have been bad with a bear at the helm simply because people were frightened and wanted someone to re-assure them. However, again making some assumptions, perhaps a spokesman for the bear could have made some reassuring statements or something…
Ok, the bear would have been worse in retrospect. The reason is we needed SOME kind of leadership, even bad leadership, post 9/11. Otherwise public confidence would have gone into the toilet. But, if the bear had taken over from Bush shortly after we invaded Afghanistan…ok, in that case I think the bear would have been better for the country.
-XT
I agree, but I don’t think people would be fobbed off by any spokesman; they didn’t elect a spokesmen. A spokesman isn’t ‘presidential’. This goes back to my point that a completely inactive president is undemocratic; it’s against the wishes of the people. As you say, people wanted the president in that situation.
Aren’t you forgetting something?
The bear would have been better. As for inaction by the bear causing a crisis in confidence, so what? That’s better than arrogantly invading a country, wrecking it and killing thousands. That’s better than torture. Inaction is better than indulging in blatant, massive evil and that’s what America did. As for any harm America would suffer from that inaction; America just spent about eight years proving just how little sympathy it deserves.
For the sake of visualization, let’s imagine that the prezbear is a Gund Snuffles.
Surely it’s unrealistic to assume that the teddy bear would have been retained for a second term?
Summing up then, I think both sides of politics agree that no-one could have done a better job than President Bush.
What if he did a good job during the first term?
In all seriousness, the point of my thread is not to ask whether a teddy bear could ever hold office. That’s illegal. I’m not asking what his approval ratings would be.
I’m just asking how good a job he would have done relative to George W Bush.
Wasn’t George Bush pretty much Dick Cheney’s teddy bear?
So really the answer depends on who is your teddy bear’s VP.
Why? Was the bear made in China?
[Insert Obama joke here…] <rimshot>
Our system is not designed for an inanimate object to sit in the Oval Office. We would probably have had President Cheney. So, if you think we would have been better off with President Cheney, then go ahead and endorse the bear. Frankly, I think this type of hypothetical is ridiculous, because you can’t change one critically important part of the system (and only that part) and still expect the system to actually work.
One good thing G.W. Bush could have done but didn’t would have been to completely disavow Dick Cheney and run for his second term with almost anyone else as VP and by anyone else I mean a teddy bear; Bush could have then resigned in favor of the teddy bear and we would all be ever so much better off.
