4 ms·

Why is it that every leader in power seems to forget that they won't stay in that position forever? Let's take his word for it and say the power won't be abused

by eksith 13y ago

Why is it that every leader in power seems to forget that they won't stay in that position forever? Let's take his word for it and say the power won't be abused. What of his successors? If a power exists, it will be abused. Period. It's only a matter of time. That's the whole premise behind checks and balances and due process. You don't leave power in the hands of a few, but the many.

Shivetya 13y ago
Why should he care? He cannot run again. It would be so much better if Presidents only could serve one term, make it six years if you must, but it must be only one term. This way we don't get the unaccountable second term crap we see a lot of.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- chris_j 13y ago
  If a president could only serve one six year term then wouldn't you get the unaccountable second term crap for the whole of that six year term? Surely one thing that keeps a politician accountable to the electorate is the prospect of having to fight an election at some point in the future.
  - derefr 13y ago
    It's too bad you guys don't have a hair-trigger for Motions of No Confidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence) like we do in Canada. We have elections every five years at the most--but it rarely ever gets to be that long, because some issue or another inevitably comes along that causes the rest of the House to be upset with the party in power, and it's very easy to throw down the "well, if you think you have the citizens' consent, just get them to vote you in again" gauntlet.
- notimetorelax 13y ago
  That's a hard problem to solve, how can you be sure that the first and the only term will not be abused?
- Aqua_Geek 13y ago
  Or they would actually be able to do something in the first term instead of worrying about/working toward re-election.
- morsch 13y ago
  By that line of reasoning wouldn't presidents continue to perceive their final term -- in that case, also their first -- as the unaccountable one? I'm afraid the problems are much more deeply seated within political culture and won't be fixed by such simple (if still completely unattainable) measures. Things that come to mind are the absolute restriction to a two party system and the concentration on a leader figure, ie. the identification of the government with one person. But from my limited point of view both of those things are at the core of the US political identity, utterly entrenched.
- ars 13y ago
  > This way we don't get the unaccountable second term crap we see a lot of. Usually the president is working so that his successor will be from his chosen party. Who thinks the next president will be a Democrat? (It doesn't really matter if you think Republican is better or worse - if they are not happy people will switch.)
  - mcv 13y ago
    The people need a third party to switch to. The current two-party system leads to a serious lack of democracy.
  - joshfraser 13y ago
    The problem is our two party system is merely a distraction to keep us fighting with each other while massive changes are being made behind the scenes. Take any issue of importance (foreign policy, national debt, warrentless wire-taping, torture, personal liberty, free speech, etc) and you'll see both parties voting together to undermine our freedom and give themselves more power/money.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  "Why should he care?" Because the is the President of the United States of America.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Principle is difficult, short-cuts are easy. And it's so much easier to "get things done" yourself if you break all the rules, but of course once you've destroyed all the rules they no longer apply to anyone, not just yourself. Ah yes, here we go, a great quote from "A Man For All Seasons": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA
ollysb 13y ago
Given that funding plays such a large role in US elections it opens the door for someone to effectively pay for the use of that power.
- sdoering 13y ago
  The best speech on this topic is the following (imho): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g
personlurking 13y ago
For listeners of "patriot radio", there are radio hosts that said, pre-Obama, that Bush was putting into place mechanisms of control and it was the next president's role to put them to use. In this sense, it's not about staying in office but rather getting certain deeds done or mechanisms in place.
saraid216 13y ago
Because the alternative is doing nothing. If your every decision at your job is qualified by the possibility that someone else will come along someday and exploit your actions to the worst possible end, you would never get anything done. I'm building software. But who says the algorithms I develop cannot be used maliciously, just because I won't do so myself?
- frogpelt 13y ago
  Not a great analogy. What the Obama administration has done with this is more akin to creating an API for future leaders to exploit the people without recourse.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > Not a great analogy. Once upon a time, someone made a hammer. A year later, someone else took that hammer and used it to break someone's face in. Sad face. Happy?
- eksith 13y ago
  > Because the alternative is doing nothing. The alternative is to do the right, thing as difficult a call as that may be. It doesn't mean you throw the constitution through the shredder or sit with your head buried in the sand. It means you make the calls that don't involve trampling over fundamental rights of human beings (citizens and non-citizens alike) in order to save them. If you can't make these decisions without doing either, then you don't belong in that position. As idealistic as that may be, society is far more organic than mere algorithms and functions; thus capable of being reformulated as necessary. And right now, it's necessary.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > The alternative is to do the right I recognize that you believe this alternative exists. I don't. I believe every action that could be taken is wrong, including no action. I believe that one of the core properties of any system is exploitability, including legal systems. > As idealistic as that may be, society is far more organic than mere algorithms and functions; thus capable of being reformulated as necessary. ...how many instances of "reformulation" can you name of society, as compared to systems of algorithms and functions? Changing society in a meaningful and directed manner is damn near impossible. Algorithms get reformulated hourly.
Semiapies 13y ago
I'm just amused at how supporters of these politicians forget that their enemies will be back in office, eventually...

by eksith 13y ago

Shivetya 13y ago

Why should he care? He cannot run again. It would be so much better if Presidents only could serve one term, make it six years if you must, but it must be only one term. This way we don't get the unaccountable second term crap we see a lot of.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
chris_j 13y ago
If a president could only serve one six year term then wouldn't you get the unaccountable second term crap for the whole of that six year term? Surely one thing that keeps a politician accountable to the electorate is the prospect of having to fight an election at some point in the future.
- derefr 13y ago
  It's too bad you guys don't have a hair-trigger for Motions of No Confidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence) like we do in Canada. We have elections every five years at the most--but it rarely ever gets to be that long, because some issue or another inevitably comes along that causes the rest of the House to be upset with the party in power, and it's very easy to throw down the "well, if you think you have the citizens' consent, just get them to vote you in again" gauntlet.
notimetorelax 13y ago
That's a hard problem to solve, how can you be sure that the first and the only term will not be abused?
Aqua_Geek 13y ago
Or they would actually be able to do something in the first term instead of worrying about/working toward re-election.
morsch 13y ago
By that line of reasoning wouldn't presidents continue to perceive their final term -- in that case, also their first -- as the unaccountable one? I'm afraid the problems are much more deeply seated within political culture and won't be fixed by such simple (if still completely unattainable) measures. Things that come to mind are the absolute restriction to a two party system and the concentration on a leader figure, ie. the identification of the government with one person. But from my limited point of view both of those things are at the core of the US political identity, utterly entrenched.
ars 13y ago
> This way we don't get the unaccountable second term crap we see a lot of. Usually the president is working so that his successor will be from his chosen party. Who thinks the next president will be a Democrat? (It doesn't really matter if you think Republican is better or worse - if they are not happy people will switch.)
- mcv 13y ago
  The people need a third party to switch to. The current two-party system leads to a serious lack of democracy.
- joshfraser 13y ago
  The problem is our two party system is merely a distraction to keep us fighting with each other while massive changes are being made behind the scenes. Take any issue of importance (foreign policy, national debt, warrentless wire-taping, torture, personal liberty, free speech, etc) and you'll see both parties voting together to undermine our freedom and give themselves more power/money.
alan_cx 13y ago
"Why should he care?" Because the is the President of the United States of America.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Principle is difficult, short-cuts are easy. And it's so much easier to "get things done" yourself if you break all the rules, but of course once you've destroyed all the rules they no longer apply to anyone, not just yourself. Ah yes, here we go, a great quote from "A Man For All Seasons": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA

ollysb 13y ago

Given that funding plays such a large role in US elections it opens the door for someone to effectively pay for the use of that power.

sdoering 13y ago
The best speech on this topic is the following (imho): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g

personlurking 13y ago

For listeners of "patriot radio", there are radio hosts that said, pre-Obama, that Bush was putting into place mechanisms of control and it was the next president's role to put them to use. In this sense, it's not about staying in office but rather getting certain deeds done or mechanisms in place.

saraid216 13y ago

Because the alternative is doing nothing. If your every decision at your job is qualified by the possibility that someone else will come along someday and exploit your actions to the worst possible end, you would never get anything done. I'm building software. But who says the algorithms I develop cannot be used maliciously, just because I won't do so myself?

frogpelt 13y ago
Not a great analogy. What the Obama administration has done with this is more akin to creating an API for future leaders to exploit the people without recourse.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > Not a great analogy. Once upon a time, someone made a hammer. A year later, someone else took that hammer and used it to break someone's face in. Sad face. Happy?
eksith 13y ago
> Because the alternative is doing nothing. The alternative is to do the right, thing as difficult a call as that may be. It doesn't mean you throw the constitution through the shredder or sit with your head buried in the sand. It means you make the calls that don't involve trampling over fundamental rights of human beings (citizens and non-citizens alike) in order to save them. If you can't make these decisions without doing either, then you don't belong in that position. As idealistic as that may be, society is far more organic than mere algorithms and functions; thus capable of being reformulated as necessary. And right now, it's necessary.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > The alternative is to do the right I recognize that you believe this alternative exists. I don't. I believe every action that could be taken is wrong, including no action. I believe that one of the core properties of any system is exploitability, including legal systems. > As idealistic as that may be, society is far more organic than mere algorithms and functions; thus capable of being reformulated as necessary. ...how many instances of "reformulation" can you name of society, as compared to systems of algorithms and functions? Changing society in a meaningful and directed manner is damn near impossible. Algorithms get reformulated hourly.

Semiapies 13y ago

I'm just amused at how supporters of these politicians forget that their enemies will be back in office, eventually...