3 ms·

> he is lawmaker number 1. The president is a member of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. He signs bills into law in his authority as an execut

> he is lawmaker number 1. The president is a member of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. He signs bills into law in his authority as an executive who will be responsible for carrying out the laws that the legislators write, not as a legislator responsible for creating those laws. You absolutely cannot say that he is "lawmaker number 1", because he's not even a lawmaker. The fact that most presidents happen to have served as legislators (senators) previously is irrelevant; that was their job then, and this is their job now. He is not the head of his party. Nor is he the one who dictates how they will (or should) be whipped - the President isn't even supposed to have any say in the process of whipping votes - that falls on Reid, Pelosi, etc. (who actually have the resources to whip legislators, since they can make promises of campaign money, etc.) We live in an era where the power of the executive has been illegally expanded well beyond what it was originally intended to be - we can thank Bush and Obama for the bulk of that (at least most recently). But that does not actually change the role that the president has (or should have) in legislative matters.

coldpie 14y ago
You might be interested in the phrase "realpolitik". The phrase comes from Germany in the mid-1800s. "Realpolitik" refers to politics as they actually occur, as opposed to the idealized interpretation you were taught in middle school, for example. America has never in its history operated according to the ideal. It's just easier to become informed in America in 2013 than it was 150 years ago, so the discrepancies between the ideal and the realpolitik are more obvious. I guess this boils down to whether you find manipulating the realpolitik to be more or less effective than trying to eliminate it.

coldpie 14y ago

You might be interested in the phrase "realpolitik". The phrase comes from Germany in the mid-1800s. "Realpolitik" refers to politics as they actually occur, as opposed to the idealized interpretation you were taught in middle school, for example. America has never in its history operated according to the ideal. It's just easier to become informed in America in 2013 than it was 150 years ago, so the discrepancies between the ideal and the realpolitik are more obvious. I guess this boils down to whether you find manipulating the realpolitik to be more or less effective than trying to eliminate it.