No More Presidents
November 4, 2020 5:17 PM Subscribe
Do we need a head of state? Does the United States of America need a president? Renegade Cut: In the US the president is both the head of state (the public representative whose duties vary depending on the nation's constitution) and the head of government (the chief officer of the executive branch). This is unusual, even unique, in the Global North (the term associated with rich nations) this consolidation makes the president arguably the most powerful and influential individual in the world.
While the president of the united states is not a king, the president's reach and influence is greater now than say King George III. An 18th century king could not wage war through drone strikes, did not have access to a nuclear arsenal, a surveillance system to spy on every citizen. Monarchy was hereditary, however some presidents and presidential candidates are relatives of former presidents or are born into the wealth required to launch a presidential campaign...
Renegade Cut previously, previously, previously.
While the president of the united states is not a king, the president's reach and influence is greater now than say King George III. An 18th century king could not wage war through drone strikes, did not have access to a nuclear arsenal, a surveillance system to spy on every citizen. Monarchy was hereditary, however some presidents and presidential candidates are relatives of former presidents or are born into the wealth required to launch a presidential campaign...
Renegade Cut previously, previously, previously.
I am going to watch this whole video in a minute but like do you think they use the White Lion sap-fest song that still somehow holds a dear place in my heart
white lion. When the children cry
posted by capnsue at 5:40 PM on November 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
white lion. When the children cry
posted by capnsue at 5:40 PM on November 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Arguably, the US was not originally supposed to have a "head of state" (or, the Secretary of State was to serve that role for external, diplomatic purposes, at least), and the president was only supposed to be a chief executive, if I recall my high school US history correctly? Like, that was part of the point of a triumvirate balance of power between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, no?
(Of course, the US president's role and powers have expanded since the country's founding.)
posted by eviemath at 5:41 PM on November 4, 2020
(Of course, the US president's role and powers have expanded since the country's founding.)
posted by eviemath at 5:41 PM on November 4, 2020
This seems like a very odd argument that relies more on specific definitions of "head of state" etc, rather than political realities. Despite not being technically the head of state, the Prime Minister in Westminster parliamentary systems clearly has more overall power than the President does in the US. They head the legislative and executive branches!
posted by ssg at 6:05 PM on November 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by ssg at 6:05 PM on November 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Apologies for the nitpick, but the UK Prime Minister is Head of Government. The Queen is Head of State.
posted by tclark at 6:08 PM on November 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by tclark at 6:08 PM on November 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
I never really liked the separation of the executive branch from the legislative. One of the pros of Westminster style parliamentary governments, at least in my opinion, is that you do get that shadow cabinet and they are much better at holding their counterparts accountable. Because the cabinet are all elected and ultimately accountable politically they can't just be flunkies or buy their way into a cabinet position like in the US.
In the US on the other hand you get the oversight committees which has a fatal flaw which we've seen over and over again the last four years: You can't actually do anything if the legislature and executive are in cahoots. Also, even when it digs up malfeasance because of the high bar for impeachment and the fixed term of the presidency, it's utterly impossible to actually hold them to account. You can only scrap the entire executive when it's finally time.
The executive screwing up royally or acting corruptly would typically bring down a parliamentary government and cause immediate elections. In the US your can only hold the government accountable at a particular time and that's it.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:51 PM on November 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
In the US on the other hand you get the oversight committees which has a fatal flaw which we've seen over and over again the last four years: You can't actually do anything if the legislature and executive are in cahoots. Also, even when it digs up malfeasance because of the high bar for impeachment and the fixed term of the presidency, it's utterly impossible to actually hold them to account. You can only scrap the entire executive when it's finally time.
The executive screwing up royally or acting corruptly would typically bring down a parliamentary government and cause immediate elections. In the US your can only hold the government accountable at a particular time and that's it.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:51 PM on November 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
Yeah baby, this is my jam. Remove powers of the President, move toward a Parliamentary system, yet again like the countries with higher standards of living than the US.
posted by rhizome at 6:57 PM on November 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 6:57 PM on November 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
CAN WE REPLACE THE PRESIDENT WITH A BLOCKCHAIN?
- some tech guy, probably
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 6:58 PM on November 4, 2020 [37 favorites]
- some tech guy, probably
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 6:58 PM on November 4, 2020 [37 favorites]
The US failure to separate those two positions is one of the reasons why the US system, like all presidential systems, is inherently unstable.
posted by jedicus at 7:01 PM on November 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by jedicus at 7:01 PM on November 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
Yeah, the head of state vs head of government is less important than is it a multi-party parliamentary system. I will be more excited to play with these hypothethicsa when we get all of our votes counted.
Also Jacinda Arden is awesome.
posted by CostcoCultist at 7:03 PM on November 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Also Jacinda Arden is awesome.
posted by CostcoCultist at 7:03 PM on November 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
The Queen is head of state only formally. Her actual power is almost nothing. To pretend that this isn't the case is just silly.
posted by ssg at 7:14 PM on November 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by ssg at 7:14 PM on November 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
Arguments about the intended or actual distinctions between “head of state” or “head of government” notwithstanding, this is an increasingly destructive exercise we go through every four years because our government was designed by people who understood monarchy and were trying to fix specific shortcomings of a specific monarchy. That it’s come to us essentially voting for a transient emperor (and, inevitably, one who aspires to permanency) is a function of that perspective. The mere fact that we have an opportunity to replace the throne’s occupant every few years does not offset the myriad other flaws and fundamental (and steadily increasing) illiberalism of the institution.
posted by gelfin at 7:33 PM on November 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by gelfin at 7:33 PM on November 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
As a point of comparison, the Presidents of France have enjoyed all the illiberal powers of the POTUS, including extremely extensive spy services, colonial forever-war powers, and (in the late 20thC) an independent nuclear arsenal. Former French Presidents have aspired to—and achieved—autocratic powers within the French system; Napoleon III even made himself Emperor. The difference isn't in the institutions, the difference is in the enthusiasm the French people have shown to tear the rules up and make a new Republic, new Constitution and all, every time everyone realises things don't really work. They are now up to Revision 5.0.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 7:49 PM on November 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 7:49 PM on November 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
I would love to have a parliamentary system where I have more than two options and my vote actually counts, but good old American exceptionalism combined with both parties' crystallization around the current system and the general public's total reverence for our original (but also heavily-amended) Constitution mean that nothing short of total collapse will bring any kind of reform. I'll be amazed if the obviously broken Electoral College will be changed in the slightest before my lifetime.
posted by meowzilla at 8:11 PM on November 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by meowzilla at 8:11 PM on November 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
How is it that the queens right to declare war a reserve power.
posted by clavdivs at 8:20 PM on November 4, 2020
posted by clavdivs at 8:20 PM on November 4, 2020
"The President of the United States has no Constitutional Council, a thing unknown in any safe and regular government. He will therefore be unsupported by proper information and advice, and will generally be directed by minions and favorites; or he will become a tool to the Senate--or a Council of State will grow out of the principal officers of the great departments; the worst and most dangerous of all ingredients for such a Council in a free country; From this fatal defect has arisen the improper power of the Senate in the appointment of public officers, and the alarming dependence and connection between that branch of the legislature and the supreme Executive."
- George Mason, grumpiest founding father
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:47 PM on November 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
- George Mason, grumpiest founding father
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:47 PM on November 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
The main reason I remain an Australian monarchist is that I firmly believe that it is completely vital that politics at the absolute highest level should make no sense whatsoever, instead remaining thoroughly and essentially farcical.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Encysting the highest office in the land within a hereditary monarchy deprived of all but symbolic powers renders those same symbolic powers unavailable to the office bearers with the greatest legislative, executive and judicial powers, thereby putting an upper limit on the corruption available to them.
It's not much of a limit but it's better than nothing. Arranging for those parts of the populace most susceptible to slavish devotion to waste it in the direction of a symbolic monarch really does limit the damage they can cause compared to having them all at the beck and call of a Hitler or a Duterte or a Trump.
posted by flabdablet at 8:52 PM on November 4, 2020 [22 favorites]
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Encysting the highest office in the land within a hereditary monarchy deprived of all but symbolic powers renders those same symbolic powers unavailable to the office bearers with the greatest legislative, executive and judicial powers, thereby putting an upper limit on the corruption available to them.
It's not much of a limit but it's better than nothing. Arranging for those parts of the populace most susceptible to slavish devotion to waste it in the direction of a symbolic monarch really does limit the damage they can cause compared to having them all at the beck and call of a Hitler or a Duterte or a Trump.
posted by flabdablet at 8:52 PM on November 4, 2020 [22 favorites]
Also Jacinda Ardern is awesome.
posted by flabdablet at 8:55 PM on November 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 8:55 PM on November 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
From this fatal defect has arisen the improper power of the Senate in the appointment of public officers, and the alarming dependence and connection between that branch of the legislature and the supreme Executive."
“I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a disgrace, that two become a lawfirm, and that three or more become a congress.”
–John Adams
posted by clavdivs at 9:04 PM on November 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
“I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a disgrace, that two become a lawfirm, and that three or more become a congress.”
–John Adams
posted by clavdivs at 9:04 PM on November 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
The main reason I remain an Australian monarchist is that I firmly believe that it is completely vital that politics at the absolute highest level should make no sense whatsoever, instead remaining thoroughly and essentially farcical.
Prince Charles may be farcical but that doesn’t put him outside politics
If you want a head of state that doesn’t interfere, don’t make it a Windsor monarch. Maybe appoint Uluru instead.
posted by moorooka at 9:11 PM on November 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Prince Charles may be farcical but that doesn’t put him outside politics
If you want a head of state that doesn’t interfere, don’t make it a Windsor monarch. Maybe appoint Uluru instead.
posted by moorooka at 9:11 PM on November 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Uluru certainly has the gravitas, but I can't see it keeping our Jeremy Kyles in raw meat at quite the required rate.
I also note in passing that Charles's expression of support for Kerr didn't come until well after the dirty deed had already been done, which is perfect play.
posted by flabdablet at 9:42 PM on November 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
I also note in passing that Charles's expression of support for Kerr didn't come until well after the dirty deed had already been done, which is perfect play.
posted by flabdablet at 9:42 PM on November 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
CAN WE REPLACE THE PRESIDENT WITH A BLOCKCHAIN?
That's 'blockchain', not 'blockhead' like last time...
posted by Cardinal Fang at 12:20 AM on November 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
That's 'blockchain', not 'blockhead' like last time...
posted by Cardinal Fang at 12:20 AM on November 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
It's not much of a limit but it's better than nothing. Arranging for those parts of the populace most susceptible to slavish devotion to waste it in the direction of a symbolic monarch really does limit the damage they can cause compared to having them all at the beck and call of a Hitler or a Duterte or a Trump.
Agreed. America wanted to get rid of Kings and the President turned into one, by those who still want a figurehead to worship instead of a civil servant to call to account.
In a healthy democracy, the president / prime minister should be regarded as a servant whose job is to make citizens' lives better, not as some Giant Cloud Papa
posted by benzenedream at 12:21 AM on November 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
Agreed. America wanted to get rid of Kings and the President turned into one, by those who still want a figurehead to worship instead of a civil servant to call to account.
In a healthy democracy, the president / prime minister should be regarded as a servant whose job is to make citizens' lives better, not as some Giant Cloud Papa
posted by benzenedream at 12:21 AM on November 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
Juan Linz "Unless a strong candidate of the center rallies widespread support against the extremes, a presidential election can fragment and polarize the electorate." and the original essay is ca 1985
The historic yearning for a Tyrant was detailed by Socrates. The Old Testament has the Jewish tribes asking God for a king. It is hard work being part of a democracy.
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 12:31 AM on November 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
The historic yearning for a Tyrant was detailed by Socrates. The Old Testament has the Jewish tribes asking God for a king. It is hard work being part of a democracy.
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 12:31 AM on November 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Kings are different from presidents not because kings are more or less powerful than presidents, but because kings are above the law and presidents are not. In a sense kings *are* the law, in that the authority of the law derives from the authority of the king, whereas the authority of the president derives from the authority of the law. To ignore that constitutional difference and focus instead on the raw power differential between 21st century presidents and 19th century kings is like comparing a banana and a grape, and concluding that the banana makes a more powerful hammer by virtue of it being much heavier than the grape. I mean, yes, but also, no. The fact that steady improvements in technology and communication have given all of us, including presidents, incredible powers of reach and influence doesn't mean we've all become kings.
Frankly I think the video leans heavily of these kinds of skewed comparisons and misconceptions. At some point it starts linking "democracy" and "freedom" but then never explains how democracy guarantees freedom or vice versa. The fact that numerous government departments were created by the president to address societal needs is presented as an ominous form of mission creep. It mentions Switzerland and its form of direct democracy as a model to emulate, but then omits to mention the deeply reactionary, bigoted outcomes of this system.
I don't disagree that the US president has become too powerful, in particular under the doctrine of the Unitary Executive. But the fact is that the US president is powerful because the US is powerful. If the US presidential system is broken, it has to be recognized at least that it functioned well in establishing and consolidating the US as a superpower.
posted by dmh at 2:59 AM on November 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
Frankly I think the video leans heavily of these kinds of skewed comparisons and misconceptions. At some point it starts linking "democracy" and "freedom" but then never explains how democracy guarantees freedom or vice versa. The fact that numerous government departments were created by the president to address societal needs is presented as an ominous form of mission creep. It mentions Switzerland and its form of direct democracy as a model to emulate, but then omits to mention the deeply reactionary, bigoted outcomes of this system.
I don't disagree that the US president has become too powerful, in particular under the doctrine of the Unitary Executive. But the fact is that the US president is powerful because the US is powerful. If the US presidential system is broken, it has to be recognized at least that it functioned well in establishing and consolidating the US as a superpower.
posted by dmh at 2:59 AM on November 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
kings are above the law and presidents are not
Yes, what a horror it would be if the President was above the law.
Why, if that was the case, they could lie with impunity and break the law, and somehow still not be impeached!
/s
posted by Paladin1138 at 3:38 AM on November 5, 2020 [11 favorites]
Yes, what a horror it would be if the President was above the law.
Why, if that was the case, they could lie with impunity and break the law, and somehow still not be impeached!
/s
posted by Paladin1138 at 3:38 AM on November 5, 2020 [11 favorites]
flabdablet
Might only seem that way because of 1) the longevity and (relative) probity, and hence stability, of Her Maj's reign, coupled with 2) the parallel politico-economic success of her kingdom over that period, which is now fading fast.
All bets are off when she dies.
posted by Pouteria at 3:59 AM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Might only seem that way because of 1) the longevity and (relative) probity, and hence stability, of Her Maj's reign, coupled with 2) the parallel politico-economic success of her kingdom over that period, which is now fading fast.
All bets are off when she dies.
posted by Pouteria at 3:59 AM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Another point made by Linz and subsequent researchers is that rather than keeping a constitution that is no longer fit for purpose - it strengthens democracy to create a new one.
American exceptionalism elevates the continuance of the constitution as an important value in and of itself. You then get something like the Federalist Society creating a doctrine of originalism, and the opinions of a bunch of long-dead white male slave owners end up defining current issues.
The theory of the separation of powers was a novel way of looking at the functioning of government - but it requires that each of the branches is able to stand on its own. The US model fails because the executive function is now so powerful and the legislative function is pretty much non-existent courtesy of the bad faith actions of the Republicans, with the judicial function now captured as part of the legislative function, ie. a further house of review. The legislative function was attacked by Republicans such as Newt Gingrich who got rid of the government researchers who worked for Congress and the House.
A bit sad to see the US Supreme Court losing its intellectual standing. In Australia, looking to the UK was standard, other Commonwealth countries occasionally, the US rarely. Still I was able to promote some of the insights of Posner and his "Economic Analysis of Law". Now, the legal system is one to be avoided if at all possible.
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 4:12 AM on November 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
American exceptionalism elevates the continuance of the constitution as an important value in and of itself. You then get something like the Federalist Society creating a doctrine of originalism, and the opinions of a bunch of long-dead white male slave owners end up defining current issues.
The theory of the separation of powers was a novel way of looking at the functioning of government - but it requires that each of the branches is able to stand on its own. The US model fails because the executive function is now so powerful and the legislative function is pretty much non-existent courtesy of the bad faith actions of the Republicans, with the judicial function now captured as part of the legislative function, ie. a further house of review. The legislative function was attacked by Republicans such as Newt Gingrich who got rid of the government researchers who worked for Congress and the House.
A bit sad to see the US Supreme Court losing its intellectual standing. In Australia, looking to the UK was standard, other Commonwealth countries occasionally, the US rarely. Still I was able to promote some of the insights of Posner and his "Economic Analysis of Law". Now, the legal system is one to be avoided if at all possible.
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 4:12 AM on November 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
All bets are off when she dies.
If Charles becomes king I'm flying home, putting myself back on the electoral roll, and voting for a Republic.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:13 AM on November 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
If Charles becomes king I'm flying home, putting myself back on the electoral roll, and voting for a Republic.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:13 AM on November 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
All bets are off when she dies
That's the main reason I don't remain a committed Australian monarchist.
If there's one thing I'm pretty sure I know about politics, it's that there's always some way for sufficiently committed fuckheads to fill the gears of a working system with dogshit and gravel. If the present Saxe-Coburg and Gotha cyst does burst, then all bets are indeed off.
The day it looks to me as if Australia would actually gain some genuinely identifiable democratic benefit from dumping the Windsors, as opposed to a mere increase in our ability to strut about spouting meaningless chest-puffing waffle about "national pride" and "finally coming of age as a nation", I'm all in.
Until then, I see the republican sideshow as a pointless distraction from what really needs to be the main game in top-level Australian politics: coming up with workable Constitutional and administrative arrangements that replace the ongoing illegal occupation of this continent with a fair, reasonable, meaningful and consequential collection of treaties with the nations we've been trying to crush with "facts on the ground" for the last couple of centuries.
posted by flabdablet at 4:18 AM on November 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
That's the main reason I don't remain a committed Australian monarchist.
If there's one thing I'm pretty sure I know about politics, it's that there's always some way for sufficiently committed fuckheads to fill the gears of a working system with dogshit and gravel. If the present Saxe-Coburg and Gotha cyst does burst, then all bets are indeed off.
The day it looks to me as if Australia would actually gain some genuinely identifiable democratic benefit from dumping the Windsors, as opposed to a mere increase in our ability to strut about spouting meaningless chest-puffing waffle about "national pride" and "finally coming of age as a nation", I'm all in.
Until then, I see the republican sideshow as a pointless distraction from what really needs to be the main game in top-level Australian politics: coming up with workable Constitutional and administrative arrangements that replace the ongoing illegal occupation of this continent with a fair, reasonable, meaningful and consequential collection of treaties with the nations we've been trying to crush with "facts on the ground" for the last couple of centuries.
posted by flabdablet at 4:18 AM on November 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
I do find myself wondering whether we need a president. Trump has demonstrated how to take over the United States government and direct it toward the purpose of one man. And somewhere, someone much smarter, and even more cruel, has been watching and learning.
posted by jabah at 5:19 AM on November 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by jabah at 5:19 AM on November 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Because the cabinet are all elected
...except for the ones that aren't. The UK commonly has cabinet members from the House of Lords who haven't been elected to jack shit, including people who are only in the House of Lords because the PM pointed at them and made them a life peer.
The UK's prime minister is much, much closer to being an indirectly elected dictator than the US President is.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 6:03 AM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
...except for the ones that aren't. The UK commonly has cabinet members from the House of Lords who haven't been elected to jack shit, including people who are only in the House of Lords because the PM pointed at them and made them a life peer.
The UK's prime minister is much, much closer to being an indirectly elected dictator than the US President is.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 6:03 AM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Richard Harris has an opinion on this. (Youtube)
posted by pykrete jungle at 6:37 AM on November 5, 2020
posted by pykrete jungle at 6:37 AM on November 5, 2020
one useless man is a disgrace, that two become a lawfirm...
Probably best attributed to Peter Stone, who puts it in the mouth of a fictional John Adams in the musical 1776.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:19 AM on November 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Probably best attributed to Peter Stone, who puts it in the mouth of a fictional John Adams in the musical 1776.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:19 AM on November 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Riding this train of thought, removing some of the executive branch's prerogatives makes sense, as their potential for abuse seems limitless. It seems to me that dreaming of the installation of the Good King is an exercise in hypocrisy.
It also seems like the two-party system--extra-constitutional as it is--works against the "people's aggregate will." Which brings me to the notion that expressing the people's will perhaps not such a good idea. Apparently, Hamilton didn't think so; he may have been right. In some respects, it seems as though we are presently awash in the people's aggregate will, and it doesn't seem like this pleases anybody. All these notions suggest impossibly intricate (and massive) adjustments.
Choose your metaphor: We blow ill-winds that do nobody my pay-grade any good. We rearrange deck chairs on the sinking ship. We gotta get a bigger boat.
posted by mule98J at 8:36 AM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
It also seems like the two-party system--extra-constitutional as it is--works against the "people's aggregate will." Which brings me to the notion that expressing the people's will perhaps not such a good idea. Apparently, Hamilton didn't think so; he may have been right. In some respects, it seems as though we are presently awash in the people's aggregate will, and it doesn't seem like this pleases anybody. All these notions suggest impossibly intricate (and massive) adjustments.
Choose your metaphor: We blow ill-winds that do nobody my pay-grade any good. We rearrange deck chairs on the sinking ship. We gotta get a bigger boat.
posted by mule98J at 8:36 AM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
I wrote my way out of hell
I wrote my way to revolution
I was louder than the crack in the bell
I wrote Eliza love letters until she fell
I wrote about The Constitution and defended it well.
-Alexander Hamilton.
posted by clavdivs at 9:48 AM on November 5, 2020
I wrote my way to revolution
I was louder than the crack in the bell
I wrote Eliza love letters until she fell
I wrote about The Constitution and defended it well.
-Alexander Hamilton.
posted by clavdivs at 9:48 AM on November 5, 2020
Heh, I've been saying since at least the Obama administration that having a single President was a bad idea that was basically left over from old aristocratic thinking imagining we needed a boss to run everything.
I'd be 100% in favor of abolishing the Presidency and replacing it by directly electing the cabinet members. Do it in a staggered fashion with 1/3 being replaced every two years similar to how the Senate is set up.
Let the elected cabinet decide on judicial nominations and suchlike with a majority vote.
Power shouldn't be concentrated in one single person's hands, we need to spread it out so we don't get dictators.
posted by sotonohito at 10:49 AM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'd be 100% in favor of abolishing the Presidency and replacing it by directly electing the cabinet members. Do it in a staggered fashion with 1/3 being replaced every two years similar to how the Senate is set up.
Let the elected cabinet decide on judicial nominations and suchlike with a majority vote.
Power shouldn't be concentrated in one single person's hands, we need to spread it out so we don't get dictators.
posted by sotonohito at 10:49 AM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
– John Adams, Notes for an oration at Braintree, 1772.
posted by clavdivs at 12:05 PM on November 5, 2020
– John Adams, Notes for an oration at Braintree, 1772.
posted by clavdivs at 12:05 PM on November 5, 2020
Heh, I've been saying since at least the Obama administration that having a single President was a bad idea that was basically left over from old aristocratic thinking imagining we needed a boss to run everything.
I'd be 100% in favor of abolishing the Presidency and replacing it by directly electing the cabinet members. Do it in a staggered fashion with 1/3 being replaced every two years similar to how the Senate is set up.
Let the elected cabinet decide on judicial nominations and suchlike with a majority vote.
Power shouldn't be concentrated in one single person's hands, we need to spread it out so we don't get dictators.
Or maybe the cabinet members could be selected by whomever controls the legislative branch, which sees elections most frequently. And maybe one of them could be the first among equals, say a primary cabinet leader. Even better, if the legislature is dissatisfied with the cabinet they select, they could dissolve the cabinet with a vote of no confidence.
That'd be a good system, I think.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:06 PM on November 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
I'd be 100% in favor of abolishing the Presidency and replacing it by directly electing the cabinet members. Do it in a staggered fashion with 1/3 being replaced every two years similar to how the Senate is set up.
Let the elected cabinet decide on judicial nominations and suchlike with a majority vote.
Power shouldn't be concentrated in one single person's hands, we need to spread it out so we don't get dictators.
Or maybe the cabinet members could be selected by whomever controls the legislative branch, which sees elections most frequently. And maybe one of them could be the first among equals, say a primary cabinet leader. Even better, if the legislature is dissatisfied with the cabinet they select, they could dissolve the cabinet with a vote of no confidence.
That'd be a good system, I think.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:06 PM on November 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
You could switch up the US to a parliamentary system and it may help things, but I feel like the low hanging fruit here is getting American elections under control. Reasonably designed electoral districts and policies in place to make it easier for all citizens to vote would I think remove some of the denial of reality that some of the politicians push. Switching from first past the post to something better would probably give space for other parties which would help things too. Although if 70,000,000 Americans voted for Trump in spite of the last 4 years then maybe more parties would just fracture the reality-based voters and leave the Republican party intact.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:44 PM on November 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:44 PM on November 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
maybe more parties would just fracture the reality-based voters and leave the Republican party intact.
I think Republicans would fracture just as quickly if able to choose a party other than Democrats. The Third-World Pillaging party, the Evangelical Solipsists, the Evangelical Communitarians. Without any theory or knowledge, I'd imagine at least at first, both parties would fracture in favor of a centrist party. At the same level of confidence, regardless how the parties shake out, I think the military would become much less of a budgetary priority.
posted by rhizome at 1:50 PM on November 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
I think Republicans would fracture just as quickly if able to choose a party other than Democrats. The Third-World Pillaging party, the Evangelical Solipsists, the Evangelical Communitarians. Without any theory or knowledge, I'd imagine at least at first, both parties would fracture in favor of a centrist party. At the same level of confidence, regardless how the parties shake out, I think the military would become much less of a budgetary priority.
posted by rhizome at 1:50 PM on November 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
Power shouldn't be concentrated in one single person's hands, we need to spread it out so we don't get dictators.
Do you want dictators? Because that's how you get dictators.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:39 PM on November 5, 2020
Do you want dictators? Because that's how you get dictators.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:39 PM on November 5, 2020
Instead of a President + Vice President, I suggest a Council of Three (Grandmothers).
“No, General, dear, you can’t have another squadron of F-666 fighters this year: their maintenance costs are outrageous. We need to build two dozen new elementary schools in Louisiana instead.”
posted by cenoxo at 7:51 PM on November 5, 2020
“No, General, dear, you can’t have another squadron of F-666 fighters this year: their maintenance costs are outrageous. We need to build two dozen new elementary schools in Louisiana instead.”
posted by cenoxo at 7:51 PM on November 5, 2020
« Older Be still, my beating heart! | A Twenty-Year (And Counting) Mission Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Harry Caul at 5:36 PM on November 4, 2020 [2 favorites]