Ellipsis
3 Nov 2008, 05:08 AM
Why Bush is not to blame for all our problems.
In a republic the purpose of the president is to make unpopular decisions. For example vetoing certain bills for a period since they may be made irrationally based on public outrage. The president also maintains the right to call for quick military action in the case of foreign attack. Although both these powers are limited they are positive in that they allow a republic in theory to remain stable and be ready for military action. They are furthermore well defined in their limitations. A parliamentary system might for example be forced to pass a bill very quickly with little oversight or no bill at all when engaging a hostile force.
These presidential powers also allow a president to be the target of criticism because the president blocked something that was viewed as essential in that time frame. Likewise the president might too quickly make the judgment for military action. Yet, the legislative branch of government holds both these at bay to a certain extent. It is the legislative branch's decision for example to continue to fund a war. Today, Bush is being blamed for the continuing war in Iraq but the fault rests with the legislative which is letting Bush be blamed while not risking a pull out for fear of the possible short term consequences and their jobs. This is the disadvantage with a republic that views the president as absolute leader: certain democratic responsibilities disappear from the legislative branch. You can see this in comparing the voter turn out in legislative branches and voter turn out for the presidential election.
This results in a funny republic in which the president is blamed for many of the unpopular actions taken by the legislative branch vs. solely on his own actions. The end result is a legislature that is ineffective in it's governing. The president is unpopular but since the legislative branch knows with certainty what the president will or will not vote for it has the ability to push through bills that are compromises. They do not represent the people's own views or those of the times but rather represent an ideology. More dangerously, the president may agree to something ideologically and the congress may do it because the people want it.
The president thus must be able to go beyond his or her own political leanings and slow down at times of crisis and extreme emotion. But the president must also be quick to act if the nation's security is in trouble. It then falls on the legislative branch and the constitution to restrain the president. If this check is not met and one has a very partisan group of voters and media that a) scapegoat the executive branch b) ignore the legislative branch. The implications with this are for example that as a president gets more and more unpopular as a republican or democrat the legislative votes start to slowly reflect that. More and more democrats or republicans are elected based sometimes on only their party ties. Eventually, a new president must be chosen. The president is thus from the legislative branch's party, ideologically opposed to the current guy. It is also very easy to vote for this guy because his positions seem great. But, if the legislature is ineffective it all the problems may not be due to the current guy. Now one might expect a similar cycle to be repeated, as both the legislature and president are able to work in tandem to push for policies. But the president will once again be seen as a scapegoat and slowly the cycle will repeat if the system is not influenced in some other way. In the end the legislature gets little blame while more and more the president is viewed as a tyrant thus creating a “unelected legislature. For large periods of time this group is able to do as it pleases with little oversight by the electorate.
Please consider the fact that you might be voting for no change at all, either way, when you enter the voting booth.
In a republic the purpose of the president is to make unpopular decisions. For example vetoing certain bills for a period since they may be made irrationally based on public outrage. The president also maintains the right to call for quick military action in the case of foreign attack. Although both these powers are limited they are positive in that they allow a republic in theory to remain stable and be ready for military action. They are furthermore well defined in their limitations. A parliamentary system might for example be forced to pass a bill very quickly with little oversight or no bill at all when engaging a hostile force.
These presidential powers also allow a president to be the target of criticism because the president blocked something that was viewed as essential in that time frame. Likewise the president might too quickly make the judgment for military action. Yet, the legislative branch of government holds both these at bay to a certain extent. It is the legislative branch's decision for example to continue to fund a war. Today, Bush is being blamed for the continuing war in Iraq but the fault rests with the legislative which is letting Bush be blamed while not risking a pull out for fear of the possible short term consequences and their jobs. This is the disadvantage with a republic that views the president as absolute leader: certain democratic responsibilities disappear from the legislative branch. You can see this in comparing the voter turn out in legislative branches and voter turn out for the presidential election.
This results in a funny republic in which the president is blamed for many of the unpopular actions taken by the legislative branch vs. solely on his own actions. The end result is a legislature that is ineffective in it's governing. The president is unpopular but since the legislative branch knows with certainty what the president will or will not vote for it has the ability to push through bills that are compromises. They do not represent the people's own views or those of the times but rather represent an ideology. More dangerously, the president may agree to something ideologically and the congress may do it because the people want it.
The president thus must be able to go beyond his or her own political leanings and slow down at times of crisis and extreme emotion. But the president must also be quick to act if the nation's security is in trouble. It then falls on the legislative branch and the constitution to restrain the president. If this check is not met and one has a very partisan group of voters and media that a) scapegoat the executive branch b) ignore the legislative branch. The implications with this are for example that as a president gets more and more unpopular as a republican or democrat the legislative votes start to slowly reflect that. More and more democrats or republicans are elected based sometimes on only their party ties. Eventually, a new president must be chosen. The president is thus from the legislative branch's party, ideologically opposed to the current guy. It is also very easy to vote for this guy because his positions seem great. But, if the legislature is ineffective it all the problems may not be due to the current guy. Now one might expect a similar cycle to be repeated, as both the legislature and president are able to work in tandem to push for policies. But the president will once again be seen as a scapegoat and slowly the cycle will repeat if the system is not influenced in some other way. In the end the legislature gets little blame while more and more the president is viewed as a tyrant thus creating a “unelected legislature. For large periods of time this group is able to do as it pleases with little oversight by the electorate.
Please consider the fact that you might be voting for no change at all, either way, when you enter the voting booth.