4 ms·
The executive branch was intended to be separate from the judicial and the legislative branch, not separate from itself.
by flanked-evergl 2y ago
The executive branch was intended to be separate from the judicial and the legislative branch, not separate from itself.
- _heimdall 2y agoAnd this is why the executive branch was never meant to have as much power as it has today. We've spent the better part of 80 years moving power from legislative to execute and granting executive a whole host of new powers. We made this bed, now it sure seems like Trump is making us sleep in it.
- Loughla 2y agoWhy do people seem drawn to having a king? What is it in human nature that makes us want a strong man in charge with absolute power?
- oblio 2y agoLaziness. Convenience is the most powerful force in humanity and it's driving us to self destruction. Obesity, car oriented everything, etc.
- krapp 2y agoMost people don't want a strong man in charge with absolute power. Dictators rule by fear and naked force, far more so than even the "monopoly on violence" claimed by modern states. A king is just another word for dictator, it's all the same. Although I would say Americans aren't really drawn to the model of a king so much as a "CEO in chief," but CEOs are essentially kings within their domain. The people who do support it believe that they themselves will be granted noble status within the new regime, rather than being serfs.
- 52-6F-62 2y agoNatural order. We structure all of nature into kingdoms. They flower out from a core archetype. And it also helps project an inheritable identity. The problem above any American political and philosophical questions (moral questions notwithstanding), is mistaking Trump for anything resembling a worthy king. It will bring trouble. In the ancient world the king was a symbol of the prosperity of the people and scapegoat for the sins and troubles of the people and was ritually killed and replaced when things weren’t working out. History whispers that one should be careful what one wishes for.
- alsoforgotmypwd 2y agoSocial Darwinistic systems are inherently unstable. People eventually get tired of corruption and being abused.
- cindylmcindy 2y agoIn my experience, your statement is opposite of true. Hence the term, 'die hard fan'. In fact, the more fans get abused, the deeper their love and loyalty grow.
- alsoforgotmypwd 2y agoThat's because many current regimes have exploited anocracy with the appearance of individual choice while manufacturing consent. Previously, it was done by force which is what doesn't scale.
- cindylmcindy 2y agoGive the people what they want. If they want to be abused, then lean all the way in.
- doitLP 2y agoIt’s very easy to reason about when someone says “I alone can fix this.” You have a single person to look at and listen to. Not a faceless sprawling beauracracy and slow wheels of legislative progress. It’s the same reason the antagonist in nearly every film is a single bad guy who is eventually karate-chopped down to size. It’s the same reason WW2 is a ‘simpler’ and more palatable narrative (a couple main bad guys) than WW1 (complex political and social movements across many countries led to war). Even though the same complexity of politics and social changes were also at play In a big society where end effects are far away, we look to the strong men to handle the big problems
- _heimdall 2y agoFear. In my opinion these decisions and problems always come back to fear.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- wan23 2y agoIt shouldn't be hard to understand why absolute power in the hands of yourself is the best political system. Since everyone can't be king, their next preference is going to be absolute power in the hands of someone who has their interests in mind. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people have varied interests and you can't really trust that anyone is fully aligned with you anyway.
- alsoforgotmypwd 2y agoDesperation, ignorance, and failure of the golden rule. They want their cult to win, and are fine with inconsistency and illegality when it benefits them. This is perhaps the ultimate vulnerability of representative government that cannot be remedied except through education and socially-enforced norms, or else democratic government must be abandoned but not for a malicious emperor.
- dmix 2y agoI remember reading Glenn Greenwald in the 2000s when he was railing against the expansion of executive power under GWB. > But the same individuals peddling this theory are simultaneously objecting quite vigorously to the notion that they are bestowing George Bush with the powers of a King. Bill Kristol and Gary Stevenson, for instance, called such claims "foolish and irresponsible" in the very same Washington Post Op-Ed where they argued that Bush need not "follow the strictures of" (i.e., obey) the law, and the President himself angrily denied that he is laying claim to a "dictatorial position" in the very same Press Conference where he proudly insisted on the right to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant even though FISA makes it a crime to do so. https://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/do-bush-defenders-place-any-limits-on_22.html https://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/do-bush-defender... And he was equally critical of Obama admin not only keeping those powers but further expanding them. Americans stopped caring around the Patriot Act and executive power has only grown under every administration since