5 ms·

I dream of an executive branch without a president. I don't see why we need one.

by thunky 2y ago

skissane 2y ago
> I dream of an executive branch without a president. I don't see why we need one. Maybe what the US really needs is a Prime Minister. Subordinate the executive branch to the legislative branch, as is the norm in the Commonwealth, the majority of Western European nations, Japan, among others And a figurehead/symbolic/apolitical President with little real power – like the Presidents of Austria, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Malta, etc
- whatshisface 2y ago
  Congress often falls into periods of internal leaderlessness or effective ruderlessness (there is supposed to be an internal hierarchy of leaders in both houses - if there was a prime minister tomorrow, their title today would be "speaker" or "majority leader.") Taking into account the role of the president to take up the reins in those instances, and the consequences of the times a president has remained deferential in attitude despite there being nobody to defer to, we probably need a separate election for president.
  - skissane 2y ago
    Congress only falls into "periods of internal leaderlessness" because (1) it doesn’t matter so much when it does because Congress is relatively powerless (compared to a Westminster system Parliament), and (2) there is no mechanism to trigger an early election (again unlike the Westminister system) If the US adopted a parliamentary system, then Congress would have to nominate a Prime Minister – and if it failed to do so within a reasonable period, it would be dissolved and a new election would be held for it. Fear of having to face the voters again is a great motivator for legislators to get their act together – especially since voters rarely take kindly to being called upon to vote again so soon.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
It’s funny that you say that, because that’s exactly what a president is supposed to be. “He presides over the executive branch.” It’s supposed to be the most boring name, to contrast with the idea of having a king-like leader. It turns out human anthropology resists such ideal concepts. But the government does function without the need of a highly competent president -The current president’s dementia is a case in point (recall the special counsel said he wasn’t mentally fit enough to be guilty of any wrongdoing).
- thunky 2y ago
  I had hoped that 4 years of Trump + 4 years of Biden would be enough for people to realize that maybe the president is not as important as made out to be. But just the opposite has happened. Which is funny because half the country would vote for a lamp post if it was running against Trump, and vice versa.
  - consteval 2y ago
    > maybe the president is not as important as made out to be I mean this just isn't the case. A certain president was very responsible for our current Supreme Court and there are real consequences for everyday Americans. The south has went bonkers with anti-abortion legislation, there was an attempted coup, and also the President is now ultimately and completely immune from consequences. Did we all just collectively forget this happened? This doesn't even touch on the right's future plans for America. Like, for example, abolishing the department of education. Again - what do you think will happen in the South if that comes to fruition? People who are disconnected from this are so from a place of privilege. It's easy to say "everything is fine" when, because of life circumstances, you will never be the target of anything ever. I have young women in my life and I've seen firsthand how this has affected them. I know drag queens and I've seen how much more hate they get. I know a teacher and she is terrified about the future (or lack thereof) of public education.
    - thunky 2y ago
      > A certain president was very responsible for our current Supreme Court Do you really think Trump had even heard of the judge names he picked? Also, do you think Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would have picked "good" justices? I think you're giving Trump too much personal credit here. Same for most of the other issues you highlighted, which I don't disagree with, but at the same time I don't think Ron DeSantis or any other candidate would have been a stark difference from Trump. For example, from https://www.aei.org/op-eds/what-it-would-mean-to-abolish-the-u-s-department-of-education/ https://www.aei.org/op-eds/what-it-would-mean-to-abolish-the...: "eliminating the Department [of Education] is hardly a new notion. Republicans have been calling for its abolition pretty much since its inception in 1979. In 1980, the year after Jimmy Carter fulfilled a campaign pledge to the National Education Association by creating the Department, Ronald Reagan pledged to dismantle it" "National figures’ promising to abolish the Department (and then not doing so) has been a staple of GOP politics and party platforms for four decades. In 1994, Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” advocated eliminating the Department. In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole did the same. In 2011, the GOP presidential debates featured an infamous moment when ED was one of three cabinet departments that Rick Perry promised to eliminate—and one of the two he could recall" In my opinion, we're not going to fix much by electing a "good" president. We've built a tower of shit and putting a ribbon on top isn't going to make it smell good. We spend so much time and energy arguing about the color of the next ribbon, and all that does is distract us from the shit pile.

I dream of an executive branch without a president. I don't see why we need one.

by thunky 2y ago

I dream of an executive branch without a president. I don't see why we need one.

> I dream of an executive branch without a president. I don't see why we need one. Maybe what the US really needs is a Prime Minister. Subordinate the executive branch to the legislative branch, as is the norm in the Commonwealth, the majority of Western European nations, Japan, among others And a figurehead/symbolic/apolitical President with little real power – like the Presidents of Austria, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Malta, etc

whatshisface 2y ago
Congress often falls into periods of internal leaderlessness or effective ruderlessness (there is supposed to be an internal hierarchy of leaders in both houses - if there was a prime minister tomorrow, their title today would be "speaker" or "majority leader.") Taking into account the role of the president to take up the reins in those instances, and the consequences of the times a president has remained deferential in attitude despite there being nobody to defer to, we probably need a separate election for president.
- skissane 2y ago
  Congress only falls into "periods of internal leaderlessness" because (1) it doesn’t matter so much when it does because Congress is relatively powerless (compared to a Westminster system Parliament), and (2) there is no mechanism to trigger an early election (again unlike the Westminister system) If the US adopted a parliamentary system, then Congress would have to nominate a Prime Minister – and if it failed to do so within a reasonable period, it would be dissolved and a new election would be held for it. Fear of having to face the voters again is a great motivator for legislators to get their act together – especially since voters rarely take kindly to being called upon to vote again so soon.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

It’s funny that you say that, because that’s exactly what a president is supposed to be. “He presides over the executive branch.” It’s supposed to be the most boring name, to contrast with the idea of having a king-like leader. It turns out human anthropology resists such ideal concepts. But the government does function without the need of a highly competent president -The current president’s dementia is a case in point (recall the special counsel said he wasn’t mentally fit enough to be guilty of any wrongdoing).

thunky 2y ago
I had hoped that 4 years of Trump + 4 years of Biden would be enough for people to realize that maybe the president is not as important as made out to be. But just the opposite has happened. Which is funny because half the country would vote for a lamp post if it was running against Trump, and vice versa.
- consteval 2y ago
  > maybe the president is not as important as made out to be I mean this just isn't the case. A certain president was very responsible for our current Supreme Court and there are real consequences for everyday Americans. The south has went bonkers with anti-abortion legislation, there was an attempted coup, and also the President is now ultimately and completely immune from consequences. Did we all just collectively forget this happened? This doesn't even touch on the right's future plans for America. Like, for example, abolishing the department of education. Again - what do you think will happen in the South if that comes to fruition? People who are disconnected from this are so from a place of privilege. It's easy to say "everything is fine" when, because of life circumstances, you will never be the target of anything ever. I have young women in my life and I've seen firsthand how this has affected them. I know drag queens and I've seen how much more hate they get. I know a teacher and she is terrified about the future (or lack thereof) of public education.
  - thunky 2y ago
    > A certain president was very responsible for our current Supreme Court Do you really think Trump had even heard of the judge names he picked? Also, do you think Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would have picked "good" justices? I think you're giving Trump too much personal credit here. Same for most of the other issues you highlighted, which I don't disagree with, but at the same time I don't think Ron DeSantis or any other candidate would have been a stark difference from Trump. For example, from https://www.aei.org/op-eds/what-it-would-mean-to-abolish-the-u-s-department-of-education/ https://www.aei.org/op-eds/what-it-would-mean-to-abolish-the...: "eliminating the Department [of Education] is hardly a new notion. Republicans have been calling for its abolition pretty much since its inception in 1979. In 1980, the year after Jimmy Carter fulfilled a campaign pledge to the National Education Association by creating the Department, Ronald Reagan pledged to dismantle it" "National figures’ promising to abolish the Department (and then not doing so) has been a staple of GOP politics and party platforms for four decades. In 1994, Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” advocated eliminating the Department. In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole did the same. In 2011, the GOP presidential debates featured an infamous moment when ED was one of three cabinet departments that Rick Perry promised to eliminate—and one of the two he could recall" In my opinion, we're not going to fix much by electing a "good" president. We've built a tower of shit and putting a ribbon on top isn't going to make it smell good. We spend so much time and energy arguing about the color of the next ribbon, and all that does is distract us from the shit pile.