The Intrinsic Danger of Presidential Systems of Government

[joe1776]

Definitely. I even go so far as to say that we shouldn't elect people to make decisions for us. Rather the population as a whole should make the decisions and the government carries those decisions out. Also, governments must be transparent to prevent corruption.

I agree that, using national referendums, citizens should make decisions on moral questions, questions of conscience, because we are all gifted with moral intuition. Civil rights issues for example.

However, many questions require expertise. For example, decisions on climate control should IMO be made by a panel of experts on climate. Then, a panel of experts on the economy should make decisions on how to implement those decisions. I think those panels should discuss-debate those decisions online for transparency.

Currently, members of Congress are getting their "expertise" from lobbyists. Bias is baked into the system.

 

[Cooky]

I agree that, using national referendums, citizens should make decisions on moral questions, questions of conscience, because we are all gifted with moral intuition. Civil rights issues for example.

However, many questions require expertise. For example, decisions on climate control should IMO be made by a panel of experts on climate. Then, a panel of experts on the economy should make decisions on how to implement those decisions. I think those panel should discuss-debate those decisions online for transparency.

Currently, members of Congress are getting their "expertise" from lobbyists. Bias is baked into the system.

Many think tanks studies are used biasedly too.

Another think I'd like to say is that national referendums are notorious for deceiving voters in California.

 

[joe1776]

Many think tanks studies are used biasedly too.

That's because they can be designed to be biased, presenting one viewpoint. Panels can also be designed to be unbiased.

Another think I'd like to say is that national referendums are notorious for deceiving voters in California.

Give me an example, please.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Lobbying is a pet peeve of the progressive left. A litmus test for Justice Democrats is that they don't take money from big corporate donors or super PACs. And they try to get an amendment through that bans money from politics. Home - Wolf-PAC

I think most would like to see real action, not token bandaids. If the left actually does that, I'll definitely support that provided real need change is successful in that endeavor.

With their pathological love of high ticket unions, I'm not too optimistic that it will ever happen.

 

[Heyo]

Not much difference, no. they seem close, though not exactly the same. if I could have remembered the exact language used, I would have used that, but I did my best to replicate the notion being described.

And failed miserably because of the subtle difference.
This thread is about the danger of a system becoming undemocratic, of one person or one party seizing all power. You didn't say much about that, especially you didn't respond to my comment that parliamentary system usually have more checks and balances.

 

[Heyo]

I think most would like to see real action, not token bandaids. If the left actually does that, I'll definitely support that provided real need change is successful in that endeavor.

With their pathological love of high ticket unions, I'm not too optimistic that it will ever happen.

I think you see "the left" as the democratic party. I'm talking about the progressive caucus within the democratic party (who get more flak from the "moderates" than republicans). The "moderate" democrats love corporate money just as much as republicans do and they are just as eager to fulfil their donors wishes - at least in Washington. It's less so in the states and that is the way wolf-pac is going. Gotta love the federal republic.

 

[PureX]

My understanding was that our president was originally intended to be a figurehead. A single face representing the nation's people to the world. And to itself. Not a policy maker, or lawmaker, of law enforcer, or law forgiver. Just a physical representation of the nation's collective personality. A job for a good actor.

The problem is that humans are also animals, and have been genetically programmed to cede authority to the dominant personalities among us. While the people possessing those dominant personalities have been genetically programmed to want and to take and to exercise that power. So although our brains tell us NOT to give anyone that kind of power, our natures drive us to do it, anyway.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I agree that, using national referendums, citizens should make decisions on moral questions, questions of conscience, because we are all gifted with moral intuition. Civil rights issues for example.

However, many questions require expertise. For example, decisions on climate control should IMO be made by a panel of experts on climate. Then, a panel of experts on the economy should make decisions on how to implement those decisions. I think those panels should discuss-debate those decisions online for transparency.

Currently, members of Congress are getting their "expertise" from lobbyists. Bias is baked into the system.

Yeah, that is the more nuanced side of the argument. Obviously, there is an objective hierarchy of expertise. So the way I think that should be solved is that the population gets highly educated on important issues. At the current state the education of the population is in I do not think that many countries would be able to make competent decision because the majority of the population are not educated. I think that online debate would be a good form of learning too.

So I think that yes, national referendums on civil rights issues would work.

And I fully agree with you regarding the lobbyists. Here in South Africa we have a full on corruption problem which is different but just as bad.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think you see "the left" as the democratic party. I'm talking about the progressive caucus within the democratic party (who get more flak from the "moderates" than republicans). The "moderate" democrats love corporate money just as much as republicans do and they are just as eager to fulfil their donors wishes - at least in Washington. It's less so in the states and that is the way wolf-pac is going. Gotta love the federal republic.

Those who think that the democratic party is "the left" should be introduced to Anarchism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm sorry for being a rotten mind reader. I'll never take a guess at anything again, I promise. From now on I'll ask questions only, and never guess.

(I still have no ******* idea what you're talking about)

I didn't even mention any sort of media or news outlet. They have absolutely nothing to do with the power structure of America or the Constitution. I have no idea where you'd even think they are who I was talking about.

 

[Cooky]

I didn't even mention any sort of media or news outlet. They have absolutely nothing to do with the power structure of America or the Constitution. I have no idea where you'd even think they are who I was talking about.

So what were you talking about? I'm dying to find out who this decentralized group is that you speak of.

 

[Cooky]

And failed miserably because of the subtle difference.
This thread is about the danger of a system becoming undemocratic, of one person or one party seizing all power. You didn't say much about that, especially you didn't respond to my comment that parliamentary system usually have more checks and balances.

I don’t see how a parliamentary system has more checks and balances, when a presidential one has a Senate, a Congress, House of Representatives, Secretary of State, Cabinet, Supreme Court, Vice President, etc....

Can you explain how?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So what were you talking about? I'm dying to find out who this decentralized group is.

There is no group. As Ive said a few times now it's how power is set up in America. By default, according to a certain piece of paper, power in America is staggered, fractured, divided, less centralized, and can be uncooperative towards a president.

 

[Cooky]

There is no group. As Ive said a few times now it's how power is set up in America. By default, according to a certain piece of paper, power in America is staggered, fractured, divided, less centralized, and can be uncooperative towards a president.

So what are you talking about? Please, let's stop beating around the bush.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So what are you talking about? Please, let's stop beating around the bush.

I'm not beating around the bush. It is clear what my post was responding to and what it is in reference to. You may have caught that if you slowed down and took some time to read instead of jumping the gun and assuming CNN.

 

[Cooky]

I'm not beating around the bush. It is clear what my post was responding to and what it is in reference to. You may have caught that if you slowed down and took some time to read instead of jumping the gun and assuming CNN.

Whatever. I ask and you won't answer.

...I get abused and treated as a second class person again. Was it because I guessed the wrong thing, or is it because you consider me the enemy?

 

[Heyo]

I don’t see how a parliamentary system has more checks and balances, when a presidential one has a Senate, a Congress, House of Representatives, Secretary of State, Cabinet, Supreme Court, Vice President, etc....

Can you explain how?

If a president (or better the president of the US) wants to make an unpopular decision, how many people does he have to have behind him? For an executive order 5, the majority of Justices. To get a favourable Justice, 51, the majority in the Senate.
If a prime minister wants to have something he has to have a majority in the (equivalent of) the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the president.

 

[Stevicus]

Several years ago, I read an article in The Atlantic about the risks and vulnerabilities of presidential systems of government that was quite an eye-opener. The author's thesis was that presidential systems are intrinsically unstable forms of government which tend to rapidly devolve into tyrannies.

In support of his thesis, he offered the fact that all but two of the presidential systems the world has seen have done exactly that -- devolved into tyranny -- within roughly twenty years of their founding. Only the United States and (for the most part) Chile had escaped the fate of the overwhelming majority of presidential systems.

Why were presidential systems so fragile? The author advanced the theory that they promote two party politics, which then is extremely susceptible to gridlock whenever the presidency is controlled by one party, while the legislature is controlled by the other. Finally, if the gridlock becomes entrenched such that the government can no longer operate, people start looking for a 'strong man' (as he called it) to take over in order to get things running again. But of course, the strong man is very likely to soon enough becomes a dictator -- a
president for life with unchecked powers.

Again, he was basically describing what has happened to nearly every presidential system the world has ever seen. But please note: We should not confuse a true presidential system with a parliamentary system in which there is a 'president' at the head of government while real power resides in a prime minister.

The author then turned to the question of why the US had survived for over 200 years, while most presidential systems were lucky to stay out of trouble for 20 years. His answer was that the US had (with the exception of the Civil War period) enjoyed over 200 years during which the two parties agreed on the basics and only argued over less than basic things. In other words, the US had been very lucky.

Given the above, it seems to me quite possible that the intrinsic weakness of presidential systems has at last caught up with the US, and that now we are on the brink of going the way of almost all other presidential systems. That's to say, it might not be too long until we, too, devolve into a dictatorship.

Comments?

I don't think the President was originally intended to have that much power. I think the Founders favored a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances so that the President wouldn't really have the means to take power. That's also why many favored decentralization and more power to state governments, since it would reduce the central government's ability to take over completely.

The Civil War changed that to a large degree, and Lincoln was criticized for overstepping the limitations of his office, but he also got a great deal of support because the Union was in danger. Still, in the years following the Civil War, the President was limited in how much power he could wield. But there was a stronger level of patriotism for America itself, which continued up to WW1 - another milestone event which elevated the standing of the office of the President. But Wilson couldn't get everything he wanted done, as Congress refused to ratify the US entry into the League of Nations.

WW2 might be the time when the "imperial presidency" became a thing, and it has continued on ever since in various forms. The President has become the "leader of the free world" and the Commander in Chief of a larger apparatus, including the military, intelligence community, and various federal law enforcement agencies. The Founders never envisioned anything like that.

Technology has also changed things as well, such as the advent of nuclear weapons and the sometimes immediate need to deal with threats quickly. The public supports this because they're afraid of so many potential threats from the outside world. As long as people continue to believe this, then the President will be given the level of power needed to deal with any urgent situation that comes up.

Eventually, Americans will need to decide whether we want a free country or a powerful global empire. If we want to be an empire, then we're going to end up with an emperor sooner or later.

 

[Cooky]

Does anyone know what shadow wolf was talking about?

 

[Cooky]

Give me an example, please.

if I still had my voters manual, I would show you how deceiving it is to the lay voter compared to what you can find in more detailed explanations online.

The wording seems intentionally confusing. it can make you think it's the opposite of what it is.