Why do we need a PRESIDENT?

[Lumpenproletariat]

Wouldn't Hitler have to take the prize for most charisma? best at manipulating his audience? And isn't one's ability to manipulate the listening audience the most important qualifier to be chosen as "leader" or "President"?

Wouldn't another Hitler be most likely to be elected U.S. President today, if he could correctly identify which symbols or slogans are most popular with the public?

Do we really need a "President"? Why?

Shouldn't our goal today be to reduce the status of the president to that of a figurehead only, or a symbol with little or no special power, other than for some symbolic functions?

 

[bigfield]

Do we really need a "President"? Why?

Once upon a time, the founding fathers of the USA believed that the President, Congress and the Judiciary would all keep each other in check. However the founding fathers didn't seems to anticipate the possibility that all three branches of government would be controlled by the same political party and therefore collaborate with each other to fulfil the party's goals.

In the present day, the US has a feral president but Congress refuses to remove him from power because he is aligned with their political party. The Senate also failed to prevent the President from appointing a supreme court judge who is clearly unfit for the office, once again because the nominee was aligned with their political party.

Shouldn't our goal today be to reduce the status of the president to that of a figurehead only, or a symbol with little or no special power, other than for some symbolic functions?

That would bring the US system closer to the Westminster system. In the Westminster system there is no separate executive branch of government: executive powers are wielded by the Prime Minister and Cabinet, while the head of state (the Queen) is just a rubber stamp.

This system doesn't permit the rapid rise of the likes of Donald Trump because such "outsiders" usually only win themselves and their followers a handful of seats in Parliament.

 

[fromderinside]

Poll: Franklin Delano Roosevelt Did more to shape the nation than any of founding fathers, more than Lincoln, and more than Teddy Roosevelt

First to the notion of a president. We need national power vested in an individual rather than in a committee or a machine.

As to structure of government and political organization. We seem to have it about right. Parties have controlled the country before now and have been set straight before by a population with much less information available to them. So slogans won't win the day beyond some current crisis or situation in 'merica.

We are currently going through a process that is likely to reduce the power of the executive significantly. That's happened three or four times since founding.

To really correct things we'd need to pass several amendments interposing more levels of governance such as regional representative bodies and responsibilities. Actually this country needs to get back to a place where no more than 50 to 100 thousand people per representative and 300 to 500 thousand per senator are involved. Higher levels of representation could be achieved through votes by citizens directing the above defined representatives to select individuals for national representation every three years on a continuously randomized schedule.

Citizens need to feel connected to leadership. There should be regional managers (presidents) and regional courts to address special needs in each, probably five, region.

I really think the general structure of our constitution is about right. We just need some fine tuning to accommodate populations and regions. The idea of a national leader elected in a single campaign needs to be toned down and decreased in extent of campaign. If we make the electors now with states be directly elected managers of regions and states, the national campaign could be run more or less on a schedule similar to that of GBs national elections.

Regions should be set up to more or less equally and reflect each other with small and large state configurations. With five 10 state regions we would have the beauty of an odd number of regions comprising our basis for national government. So most of what separates us would be housed in regions diffusing then from national debates and the national election would reflect the consensus of all citizens within the republic. Doing this would have deflated the minority vote for president in 2016 from gaining control of the national electoral will.

 

[Politesse]

Do we really need a "President"? Why?

So the idiot peasants will think that there's a king, and not ask uncomfortable questions about the corporate oligarchy that quietly governs the country?

As for your question, surely Queen Elizabeth II; she has sustained through one of the most complex acting careers in history an entire system of government that is utterly at odds with the general political sympathies of her citizens. Like her 66 year long performance is the only reason an entire theocratic, aristocratically wealth-drenched, and theoretically authoritarian monarchy still exists over a largely secular, socialist, and democracy-hugging nation. And all that largely without serious political challenge. All while giving the strong impression of not doing anything at all. From this outsider's viewpoint, a truly remarkable show.

 

[fromderinside]

Your notion that QE2 was charismatic and changing in any way staggers me. Actually her most significant thing is the actor representing her being pictured seeing The Stagg in the Movie The Queen.

 

[Politesse]

Your notion that QE2 was charismatic and changing in any way staggers me. Actually her most significant thing is the actor representing her being pictured seeing The Stagg in the Movie The Queen.

She's the clever kind, not loud kind. Loud kinds end up shooting themselves in a bunker somewhere eleven years in. Clever ones don't give the impression of doing much, but nevertheless prop up a grossly unequal system that heavily benefits themselves and their family for half a century. If Hitler was Commodus, QEII is the Antoninus Pius of our time.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why should one madman make the decision rather than a "committee"?

First to the notion of a president. We need national power vested in an individual rather than in a committee or a machine.

I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

So, what's wrong with having a committee decide whether to drop a bomb on Moscow rather than leave it to one nutcase charismatic "President" who was better than the other demagogues at manipulating idiots to vote for him?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

So everyone agrees: We DON'T need a "President" -- right?

Do we really need a "President"? Why?

So the idiot peasants will think that there's a king, and not ask uncomfortable questions about the corporate oligarchy that quietly governs the country?

But what if we WANT them to ask the questions? (as you probably do?) What if we don't want to keep them in ignorance? In that case, why do we need a "President"?

 

[Tigers!]

Sir Winston Churchill

Took the english language into battle. Kept the flame of resistance to Hitler alit.

 

[PyramidHead]

Sir Winston Churchill

Took the english language into battle. Kept the flame of resistance to Hitler alit.

Starved 3 million Bengali Indians in a single year because he didn't like them. Go off king

 

[skepticalbip]

Why should one madman make the decision rather than a "committee"?

There are very few independent decisions that the president is empowered to make. The U.S. is run by committee or a committee of committees. We have two congressional committees that write the laws and establish budgets with 435 members in one and 100 members in the other. The president's primary job is to oversee enforcement of the decisions of those two committees. The president can negotiate trade deals and treaties but they are not binding until approved by those committees.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wouldn't Hitler have to take the prize for most charisma? best at manipulating his audience? And isn't one's ability to manipulate the listening audience the most important qualifier to be chosen as "leader" or "President"?

Wouldn't another Hitler be most likely to be elected U.S. President today, if he could correctly identify which symbols or slogans are most popular with the public?

Do we really need a "President"? Why?

Shouldn't our goal today be to reduce the status of the president to that of a figurehead only, or a symbol with little or no special power, other than for some symbolic functions?

The President, usually, is a figurehead. The President doesn't negotiate the treaties, staffing does. Still that is entirely within the Executive Branch. The President doesn't micromanage the military, the Generals/Admirals and down the line do. But there needs to be someone at the top to be the final arbiter. Otherwise, how does a National Government of 50 million, 350 million, 2 billion work fully?

So the question I suppose is are you arguing for axing the Executive Branch and merging it with Congress... and who in Congress has the final say in the execution of laws, treaties, legislation?

 

[fromderinside]

I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

So, what's wrong with having a committee decide whether to drop a bomb on Moscow rather than leave it to one nutcase charismatic "President" who was better than the other demagogues at manipulating idiots to vote for him?

Well the shooting down of a commercial plane off the east coast of the Soviet Union during Nixon's presidency is the best example at all levels for why individuals given decision power are more apt to be correct than any form of group or centralized control and decision making. They took too long and did the wrong thing because of centralized control, indecisive by group serving several masters, fear of making decisions, and rigid and dated control systems.

First elected presidents aren't usually charismatic characters, entertainment stars maybe, but charismatic, naw. The top attribute of a president is perception by people she can make decisions in the national interest.

Right now we have a throw away president who was selected because the public decided the system was broken that there were no eminent threats to our nation, and that the nation needed some wrenches thrown in to it. Now the rats are coming home to roost and the threats are coming out of the woodwork.

 

[skepticalbip]

First to the notion of a president. We need national power vested in an individual rather than in a committee or a machine.

I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

The camel is a poor example of design by committee. A real world example of design by committee is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It became unsuitable for the original intent, was years late, and cost several times its budget.

 

[DBT]

Hard to say. Too many self serving shysters and villains...Ghandi, maybe.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why should one madman make the decision rather than a "committee"?

There are very few independent decisions that the president is empowered to make. The U.S. is run by committee or a committee of committees.

That's not true. The President individually has way too much power.

But if we assume you're right, then we don't need a President, because all the necessary decisions are made without him.

We have two congressional committees that write the laws and establish budgets with 435 members in one and 100 members in the other. The president's primary job is to oversee enforcement of the decisions of those two committees.

You know that he repeatedly goes against their decisions as he wishes.

But he also issues his executive orders which are purely his own decisions, sometimes contrary to what Congress wants.

Why should one person alone have any power to make policy decisions? Why should he even have veto power? Why not instead have a "committee" exercise that power?

The president can negotiate trade deals and treaties but they are not binding until approved by those committees.

Why should one person alone have that power? Why couldn't a "committee" negotiate the trade deals and treaties (to be submitted for approval)?

And you omitted the "commander-in-chief" role which permits him to in effect start up a war (including whether to launch a nuclear attack). Why shouldn't there be a "committee" to make those decisions instead of putting all that power into the hands of one person?

 

[fromderinside]

Committees can't flip switches since they have no hands.

 

[skepticalbip]

That's not true. The President individually has way too much power.

But if we assume you're right, then we don't need a President, because all the necessary decisions are made without him.

We have two congressional committees that write the laws and establish budgets with 435 members in one and 100 members in the other. The president's primary job is to oversee enforcement of the decisions of those two committees.

You know that he repeatedly goes against their decisions as he wishes.

But he also issues his executive orders which are purely his own decisions, sometimes contrary to what Congress wants.

Why should one person alone have any power to make policy decisions? Why should he even have veto power? Why not instead have a "committee" exercise that power?

The president can negotiate trade deals and treaties but they are not binding until approved by those committees.

Why should one person alone have that power? Why couldn't a "committee" negotiate the trade deals and treaties (to be submitted for approval)?

And you omitted the "commander-in-chief" role which permits him to in effect start up a war (including whether to launch a nuclear attack). Why shouldn't there be a "committee" to make those decisions instead of putting all that power into the hands of one person?

There is too fucking much ignorance in that of how our government is set up and operates. I have to assume that you have never taken a civics class. It is a shame that the public school system has become so piss poor that the majority of current HS graduates can not pass the citizenship test required of emigrants to become citizens.

A sad note when a new citizen that was a refugee from some war torn country in Africa knows more about how the U.S. government works than native born citizens.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I forget which president, at the end of his term, remarked that there are no easy decisions as president.
The previous pres. told him that on tge way to the inauguration. "Any easy decision will be made much lower down the ladder. Any hard decision gets bucked up a rung. The hardest go highest. And you have no one to buck them up to."

"At first i did not believe him. But, then it proved to be true."


I thought about that a lot as a leading petty officer. I was never the final authority, so i always had the 'buck' option. But a lot of the decisions i did make were bucked up to mebecause they weren't easy for others.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^
Yes. The really, really tough decisions are those needed to resolve some really dire and threatening situation within the constraints of current laws or regulations when it would be easily resolved by ignoring approved procedures or the law. Lower echelons can decide how to resolve problems by following procedures. Going beyond normal approved procedures requires higher authority.