Is the US President the real US leader?

[lpetrich]

So it seems from the turnouts in US elections. Presidential elections attract many more voters than midterm ones. It's almost as if many Americans think that the President is the real leader, the only leader that has any importance.

That is especially a problem for the Left and Center, who do not turn out as much for midterms as the Right does. This is evident from all those who want Elizabeth Warren to run for President, even though she is content with being a Senator and even though she has been reasonably successful as one. It is also evident from those who support Senator Bernie Sanders running for President. However, the Right also suffers from that, as is evident from the extreme zeal of Ron Paul's supporters.

In actual fact, the US is ruled by a de facto ruling committee, a committee with members including Congress, the President and his (maybe soon her) Cabinet members and top staff members, and the Supreme Court and other big Federal courts. So Senator Warren is showing good sense by staying in the Senate and not trying to compete for the Presidency.

This ruling committee is also de jure, because the Constitution can reasonably be interpreted as specifying such a committee, complete with delegation of authority.


Being de jure need not be de facto.

For instance, the President can confine himself to being a rubber-stamp figurehead president, with his Chief of Staff doing the actual work of leading. The Chief of Staff, Cabinet members, and other top executive-branch officials would be Congresspeople selected by Congress for those jobs. Thus, a parliamentary system.

Or else Congress could defer to the President. That was pretty much how the Roman Empire operated, with the Senate deferring to the Emperor.


Those scenarios aside, it would be interesting to find out why so many people vote only in Presidential election years and not in midterms.

 

[prideandfall]

in terms of governmental and bureaucratic power, not so much.
IMO the real structural and political power of the presidency comes from it being the governmental figurehead for the cultural zeitgeist, which i think more than anything gives indicators to the greater governmental apparatus as to what exactly they can get away with.

so i'd say yeah the president has a good deal of influence and power, but not in the "leader of the free world" way the position is often portrayed.

 

[Trausti]

Those scenarios aside, it would be interesting to find out why so many people vote only in Presidential election years and not in midterms.

Eh? The presidential election is showered with wall-to-wall coverage and the candidates made celebrities. That'd be why turnout is usually higher during a presidential election. How many people know the name of their member of congress? How about the name of their representative in the state house? Who's on the city council?

 

[arkirk]

Those scenarios aside, it would be interesting to find out why so many people vote only in Presidential election years and not in midterms.

Eh? The presidential election is showered with wall-to-wall coverage and the candidates made celebrities. That'd be why turnout is usually higher during a presidential election. How many people know the name of their member of congress? How about the name of their representative in the state house? Who's on the city council?

You can know all that (who's on first, etc.) and still it means very little. Politicians are place markers for financiers who pay the bills of getting them elected. That is in part why Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are not running for president. They are both hip enough to know that we have created an electoral system that only elects over-sponsored candidates and that any person who attains the office is so burdened with obligations to his financial handlers, he/she really has very little to say about policies that might conflict with the interest of these handlers. Today the money comes from Wall Street Bankers, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, and Walmart (the biggest private employer in the world). While they are not exactly "job creators," they are office placeholder creators.

That is why our government appears paralyzed in the face of environmental threats, social failings, and inability to avoid violent incursions into other countries. We need to be honest with ourselves about these people who get elected to office. They always must arrive in office entirely beholden to their handlers. Once we had a president who was so megalomanic he thought he led the free world. He got a bullet in the head.
Our government is actually run on an informal basis when it comes to the powerful people who run it by remote control. The laws of our government are not meant for them but for the 98%. They are about removing taxes from themselves and cornering as many markets as they can, regardless of the casualties.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So it seems from the turnouts in US elections. Presidential elections attract many more voters than midterm ones. It's almost as if many Americans think that the President is the real leader, the only leader that has any importance.

That is especially a problem for the Left and Center, who do not turn out as much for midterms as the Right does. This is evident from all those who want Elizabeth Warren to run for President, even though she is content with being a Senator and even though she has been reasonably successful as one. It is also evident from those who support Senator Bernie Sanders running for President. However, the Right also suffers from that, as is evident from the extreme zeal of Ron Paul's supporters.

In actual fact, the US is ruled by a de facto ruling committee, a committee with members including Congress, the President and his (maybe soon her) Cabinet members and top staff members, and the Supreme Court and other big Federal courts. So Senator Warren is showing good sense by staying in the Senate and not trying to compete for the Presidency.

This ruling committee is also de jure, because the Constitution can reasonably be interpreted as specifying such a committee, complete with delegation of authority.


Being de jure need not be de facto.

For instance, the President can confine himself to being a rubber-stamp figurehead president, with his Chief of Staff doing the actual work of leading. The Chief of Staff, Cabinet members, and other top executive-branch officials would be Congresspeople selected by Congress for those jobs. Thus, a parliamentary system.

Or else Congress could defer to the President. That was pretty much how the Roman Empire operated, with the Senate deferring to the Emperor.


Those scenarios aside, it would be interesting to find out why so many people vote only in Presidential election years and not in midterms.

The OP begs the question, if the US president isn´t in charge, then who is? It´s the wrong question to ask. Obama might, relatively, be USA´s most powerful man (and therefore in the world) but that still doesn´t make him particularly powerful. If we define power as an entities ability to make other people do stuff they otherwise wouldn´t then the blank-faced and abstract market sits with almost all the chips. The market is like a force of nature and as such has a lot of randomness to it. So that´s your answer. The leader of the world is randomness.

Note: the market isn´t the same thing as big corporations being in power. They´re not. Their room for maneuver is at best tiny.

I do suspect that this insight is the root of many conspiracy theories. Nobody sane feels at ease knowing that nobody is running this place. We all would like some sort of guarantees in life. But there are none. So some people invent elaborate conspiracies in order to give them some peace of mind.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Probably a feeling of hopelessness. The Big Dog they voted for didn't have the bite they were expecting and they've lost interest.

But I believe Dr. Zoilberg is on to something. In the end, it's all about the dollar in your pocket. Corporations and even industries can come crashing down. They'll fight for their piece of the pie. They'll push for legislation, bring lawsuits, buy and squelch the creativity that threatens them. But they can't control it all. There's always going to be some guy in some garage who's going to make a change. Maybe creativity is in control.

 

[fromderinside]

.... creativity is in control.

Wha .... naw.

 

[arkirk]

So it seems from the turnouts in US elections. Presidential elections attract many more voters than midterm ones. It's almost as if many Americans think that the President is the real leader, the only leader that has any importance.

That is especially a problem for the Left and Center, who do not turn out as much for midterms as the Right does. This is evident from all those who want Elizabeth Warren to run for President, even though she is content with being a Senator and even though she has been reasonably successful as one. It is also evident from those who support Senator Bernie Sanders running for President. However, the Right also suffers from that, as is evident from the extreme zeal of Ron Paul's supporters.

In actual fact, the US is ruled by a de facto ruling committee, a committee with members including Congress, the President and his (maybe soon her) Cabinet members and top staff members, and the Supreme Court and other big Federal courts. So Senator Warren is showing good sense by staying in the Senate and not trying to compete for the Presidency.

This ruling committee is also de jure, because the Constitution can reasonably be interpreted as specifying such a committee, complete with delegation of authority.


Being de jure need not be de facto.

For instance, the President can confine himself to being a rubber-stamp figurehead president, with his Chief of Staff doing the actual work of leading. The Chief of Staff, Cabinet members, and other top executive-branch officials would be Congresspeople selected by Congress for those jobs. Thus, a parliamentary system.

Or else Congress could defer to the President. That was pretty much how the Roman Empire operated, with the Senate deferring to the Emperor.


Those scenarios aside, it would be interesting to find out why so many people vote only in Presidential election years and not in midterms.

The OP begs the question, if the US president isn´t in charge, then who is? It´s the wrong question to ask. Obama might, relatively, be USA´s most powerful man (and therefore in the world) but that still doesn´t make him particularly powerful. If we define power as an entities ability to make other people do stuff they otherwise wouldn´t then the blank-faced and abstract market sits with almost all the chips. The market is like a force of nature and as such has a lot of randomness to it. So that´s your answer. The leader of the world is randomness.

Note: the market isn´t the same thing as big corporations being in power. They´re not. Their room for maneuver is at best tiny.

I do suspect that this insight is the root of many conspiracy theories. Nobody sane feels at ease knowing that nobody is running this place. We all would like some sort of guarantees in life. But there are none. So some people invent elaborate conspiracies in order to give them some peace of mind.

Your post ignores the big banks and the Military Industrial Complex. Your idea that the market is something above the biggest corporations is faulty as well. Our political system (the presidency included) is driven by the needs of the wealthy in this country. They own the politics. Just chosing between the two partys' candidates is simply NOT DEMOCRACY. Obama has been doing exactly what his handlers want him to do. He is their puppy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Your post ignores the big banks and the Military Industrial Complex. Your idea that the market is something above the biggest corporations is faulty as well. Our political system (the presidency included) is driven by the needs of the wealthy in this country. They own the politics. Just chosing between the two partys' candidates is simply NOT DEMOCRACY. Obama has been doing exactly what his handlers want him to do. He is their puppy.

You´re missing the point. Could the big banks and Military Industrial Complex do any different? If your entire life is built around a certain type of career you will do whatever it takes to be as successful at it as possible. That´s human nature. As is wanting to be liked by the people you admire. I´ve often heard (by leftists) that various companies could pull out of certain countries, stop selling certain products or quit pressuring politicians. The reality is that if they would do that, another company would just fill the vacuum and nothing has changed. The only difference is brand printed on the packaging. If the big banks and big companies are doing the only thing they can do, then they are not in power. Power implies that you have options. To use your language, companies are doing what their handlers (the market) is telling them what to do. They are the markets puppet.

The start of the First World War is a good example. Once the idea (nationalism) that everybody needed a strong military got started, the military capacity of each nation would continually grow until they spent money on nothing else. So where did that specific idea of that type of nationalism emerge? The German philosophers Fichte and Herder. Did they have power? Fichte was considered a lunatic by the French occupational forces and was the only person they let criticize their regime because he amused them. Not even they got their ideas from nothing. It´s impossible to point to any single person or even group of people and blame WWI on them. Nobody had the power to stop it. What needed to happen was that the idea of nationalism had to die. At least that form of it. It did thankfully after WW2. Ideas spread like viruses. And everybody are always powerless to stop them. All politics are always exactly the same.

I don´t have any illusions about the flaws of democracy. All I require to support it is that it is slightly better than the alternatives.