3 ms·

It's a mistake to think that the Presidents are really in the driving seat when it comes to issues like this. None of them since Eisenhower come out of the mili

It's a mistake to think that the Presidents are really in the driving seat when it comes to issues like this. None of them since Eisenhower come out of the military establishment or have any deep background in security policy, so they're reliant on, and credulous of, advisers who are completely bound to the military-intelligence-security-industrial complex. Obama has dozens of generals and spy chiefs and policy "experts" telling him that if he veers off course the sky will come crashing down on his head. So will the next President. No one with the immense responsibility of a modern President is going to be able to bring themselves to overrule the expert "advice" of the entrenched mil-sec-intel establishment unless they're already very thoroughly acquainted with its failings. It is folly to expect a single man to be able to fix this mess. The only way out is to fix the legislative and policy failures that allow the whole structure to exist.

justin66 13y ago
> Obama has dozens of generals and spy chiefs and policy "experts" telling him that if he veers off course the sky will come crashing down on his head. So will the next President. True, but it's actually worse than that. Imagine how the public itself would react to a president who dealt with emerging security threats by saying things like "that's a real threat but we're not going to create anything new to deal with it." The public would not be kind to them, even though it's the right answer in most cases.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
ihsw 13y ago
That's fine, the problem is Obama is a liar and a hypocrite. Yes he didn't know that he was making empty promises, but usually when you sign up for a job you know ahead of time whether you can do the job. Lying during the interview process usually gets you disqualified with prejudice, but he was elected again. It'd be nice if he apologized after discovering that his promises were a bit excessive.
- Gormo 13y ago
  Obama is a liar and a hypocrite. Bush was a liar and a hypocrite. Clinton was a liar and a hypocrite. Bush Sr. was a liar and a hypocrite. Did all of these individuals go into office intending to become liars and hypocrites? Or is it more likely that the political system is so dysfunctional that it's not possible for anyone who takes office not to become a liar and a hypocrite. We've seen that electing different individuals to the same offices isn't solving these problems. It's time to start figuring out how to fix our broken institutions.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    Here's a start: Through the Electoral College, your vote changes without your consent. Entire states "turn blue" when 49% of it are in fact red. Democracy? Hardly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Contemporary_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_State... As a matter of official policy, elected politicians can define constituency boundaries and as such they can manipulate district boundaries at their discretion -- more often than not to their and their party's benefit. Democracy? Hardly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering Both result in hyper-majorities and as such the far left and the far right unilaterally wield power. Compromise is universally interpreted as capitulation, so there is no middle-ground where they meet. Unless, of course, it has to do with spying on Americans.
Gormo 13y ago
It's probably not even right to say "...they're reliant on, and credulous of, advisers..." when it comes to organizations like the NSA. Many of the executive bureaucracies are probably well-equipped to act on their own initiative, and evade attempts from the White House to exercise direct control over their operations, regardless of whether the president is informed by advisors or acting on his own initiative. Ironically, an overly-centralized executive branch is actually less adapt at ensuring accountability and transparency in its subordinate organizations, especially ones that have grown as large and complex as the modern federal bureaucracy has. If we're not going to rein in the power and reduce the scale of the federal government, we're going to need to do something along the lines of making the department secretaries constitutional offices, elected independently, or implement some sort of collegial executive, like Switzerland's. Otherwise, we're going to wind up with a situation where the government is too complex to itself be governed by its constitutional officers (if it isn't already).

justin66 13y ago

> Obama has dozens of generals and spy chiefs and policy "experts" telling him that if he veers off course the sky will come crashing down on his head. So will the next President. True, but it's actually worse than that. Imagine how the public itself would react to a president who dealt with emerging security threats by saying things like "that's a real threat but we're not going to create anything new to deal with it." The public would not be kind to them, even though it's the right answer in most cases.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

ihsw 13y ago

That's fine, the problem is Obama is a liar and a hypocrite. Yes he didn't know that he was making empty promises, but usually when you sign up for a job you know ahead of time whether you can do the job. Lying during the interview process usually gets you disqualified with prejudice, but he was elected again. It'd be nice if he apologized after discovering that his promises were a bit excessive.

Gormo 13y ago
Obama is a liar and a hypocrite. Bush was a liar and a hypocrite. Clinton was a liar and a hypocrite. Bush Sr. was a liar and a hypocrite. Did all of these individuals go into office intending to become liars and hypocrites? Or is it more likely that the political system is so dysfunctional that it's not possible for anyone who takes office not to become a liar and a hypocrite. We've seen that electing different individuals to the same offices isn't solving these problems. It's time to start figuring out how to fix our broken institutions.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Here's a start: Through the Electoral College, your vote changes without your consent. Entire states "turn blue" when 49% of it are in fact red. Democracy? Hardly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Contemporary_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_State... As a matter of official policy, elected politicians can define constituency boundaries and as such they can manipulate district boundaries at their discretion -- more often than not to their and their party's benefit. Democracy? Hardly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering Both result in hyper-majorities and as such the far left and the far right unilaterally wield power. Compromise is universally interpreted as capitulation, so there is no middle-ground where they meet. Unless, of course, it has to do with spying on Americans.

Gormo 13y ago

It's probably not even right to say "...they're reliant on, and credulous of, advisers..." when it comes to organizations like the NSA. Many of the executive bureaucracies are probably well-equipped to act on their own initiative, and evade attempts from the White House to exercise direct control over their operations, regardless of whether the president is informed by advisors or acting on his own initiative. Ironically, an overly-centralized executive branch is actually less adapt at ensuring accountability and transparency in its subordinate organizations, especially ones that have grown as large and complex as the modern federal bureaucracy has. If we're not going to rein in the power and reduce the scale of the federal government, we're going to need to do something along the lines of making the department secretaries constitutional offices, elected independently, or implement some sort of collegial executive, like Switzerland's. Otherwise, we're going to wind up with a situation where the government is too complex to itself be governed by its constitutional officers (if it isn't already).