Presidents And Prime Ministers

[Laudate_Dominum]

It strikes me as odd that one guy can wield so much power. Like, why not have the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Judiciary, and maybe some truly open and democratic body to handle those aspects of the executive branch that can't reasonably be handed off to the congress? Why do we really need a president? At least a president in the sense of a single guy capable of issuing "executive orders," vetoing bills, signing laws, and being "commander in chief" of the military, getting to appoint his own people to all these powerful posts, etc. It seems like the presidency is abused so much and just the idea of having this office of "most powerful man in the world" goes against the fundamental principles of democracy and all that. Also having one guy who embodies the United States to the world seems unfortunate as the actions of this one guy can make whole countries and regions of the world resent "America" even though he's just ONE GUY. Why do modern governments need these radical concentrations of power in one dude? I tend to think that they do not and that such things are holdovers from the old monarch days. Of course there are limits on the president's power, but still, is it really necessary to begin with? Might there be better ways to do things, perhaps more in keeping with democratic values? Can't say I'm crazy about the cults of personality and the whole "election" process either.

Just something interesting to speculate about anyway.

[Jesus_lol]

you mentioned Prime Ministers in the title, then neglected to refer to them in the body of your article. Bad form. and it makes us canadians feel left out

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='26 March 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1269644787' post='2080946']
you mentioned Prime Ministers in the title, then neglected to refer to them in the body of your article. Bad form. and it makes us canadians feel left out
[/quote]
Haha, I was hoping a Canadian such as yourself would do it for me as I don't know much about it.

[Era Might]

Wasn't one of the reasons why the Articles of Confederation didn't work was because the Executive branch did not have any real authority?

By the way, I agree with your qualms about elections and personality cults...and I don't see how to get past those problems, because they are inherent to the system, it seems...getting elected is ultimately about making yourself likeable.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

That is only one of the reasons why the Articles of Confederation failed, but L_D is not saying that there should be no executive branch, but only that the power of the executive should not be vested in one man.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' date='26 March 2010 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1269645442' post='2080954']
Wasn't one of the reasons why the Articles of Confederation didn't work was because the Executive branch did not have any real authority?[/quote]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='26 March 2010 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1269645925' post='2080956']
That is only one of the reasons why the Articles of Confederation failed, but L_D is not saying that there should be no executive branch, but only that the power of the executive should not be vested in one man.
[/quote]
That's pretty much what I was going to say. Thanks.

[quote name='Era Might' date='26 March 2010 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1269645442' post='2080954']
By the way, I agree with your qualms about elections and personality cults...and I don't see how to get past those problems, because they are inherent to the system, it seems...getting elected is ultimately about making yourself likeable.
[/quote]
When I mentioned having qualms with the "election process" I actually had in mind the current system based on the electoral college and I tend to think that an actual popular vote by the people would be more democratic. But perhaps we agree in that I'm convinced that one of the biggest challenges to a modern democratic society is propaganda.

[Apotheoun]

I would favor a triumvirate.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='26 March 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1269646326' post='2080959']When I mentioned having qualms with the "election process" I actually had in mind the current system based on the electoral college and I tend to think that an actual popular vote by the people would be more democratic. But perhaps we agree in that I'm convinced that one of the biggest challenges to a modern democratic society is propaganda.
[/quote]
Hmmmm. I actually have a book title you might be interested in about propaganda. I guess propaganda is a factor...but I don't see how having the people vote directly is going to solve the fact that the election process is, to quote a song by The Roots, a "world of politics and mascara."

In my opinion, a philosopher-politician, someone who truly asks the right questions, has no chance to succeed in our modern system. I actually think that it's easier to be a philosopher-king in a monarchical system than it is to be a philosopher-politician in our modern system.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Era Might

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='26 March 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1269645442' post='2080954']
Wasn't one of the reasons why the Articles of Confederation didn't work was because the Executive branch did not have any real authority?
[/quote]

Who said the Articles of Confederation didn't work like they were supposed to?

~Sternhauser

[Gregorius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='26 March 2010 - 07:37 PM' timestamp='1269646668' post='2080961']
Hmmmm. I actually have a book title you might be interested in about propaganda. I guess propaganda is a factor...but I don't see how having the people vote directly is going to solve the fact that the election process is, to quote a song by The Roots, a "world of politics and mascara."

In my opinion, a philosopher-politician, someone who truly asks the right questions, has no chance to succeed in our modern system. I actually think that it's easier to be a philosopher-king in a monarchical system than it is to be a philosopher-politician in our modern system.
[/quote]
I would go with Socrates and that you cannot be a just man and participate in a democratic government. In fact, according to Aristotle, when the truly just ruler comes, he will be run out of town and nailed to a tree.
Oh wait...

[Gregorius]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='26 March 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1269646386' post='2080960']
I would favor a triumvirate.
[/quote]
Or we could be like Sparta and have a dual monarchy. Mandatory public exercise for everybody!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' date='26 March 2010 - 07:37 PM' timestamp='1269646668' post='2080961']
Hmmmm. I actually have a book title you might be interested in about propaganda. I guess propaganda is a factor...
[/quote]
One of the first texts I encountered that got me thinking was this.

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Necessary-Illusions-Thought-Democratic-Societies/dp/0896083667"]Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies[/url]

I acquired this text soon after.

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ref=pd_sim_b_1"]Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media[/url]

There is a little movie based on the latter book.

[media]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730#[/media]

I realize these are pretty old school at this point. Which text(s) did you have in mind?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' date='26 March 2010 - 07:37 PM' timestamp='1269646668' post='2080961']
but I don't see how having the people vote directly is going to solve the fact that the election process is, to quote a song by The Roots, a "world of politics and mascara."

In my opinion, a philosopher-politician, someone who truly asks the right questions, has no chance to succeed in our modern system. I actually think that it's easier to be a philosopher-king in a monarchical system than it is to be a philosopher-politician in our modern system.
[/quote]
The point is an effective separation of powers and a system that counteracts the tendencies of concentrated power. The benevolent, paternal, philosopher-king is basically a myth but even were is true, a good master is still a master. But this is off-topic. I wonder if the presidency is superfluous and the current nature of our "executive branch" is inferior to some more democratic alternative. I'm not trying to be so radical here as to debate the fundamental idea of the government. This isn't supposed to be an anarchy thread. I just wonder why we need a president and if it is really worth it. Let's say that the Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the rest of it stays, but let us then presume that the executive branch is disordered because of the powers of the presidency and that these powers ought to be limited and/or possibly turned over to a new thing; perhaps an executive congress.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='26 March 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1269657834' post='2081058']
Who said the Articles of Confederation didn't work like they were supposed to?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
My Political Science 101 textbook.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='26 March 2010 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1269659532' post='2081084']I realize these are pretty old school at this point. Which text(s) did you have in mind?
[/quote]
"Propaganda" by Jacques Ellul. I haven't read this book yet, but I know Ellul from some of his other writings. He's an interesting thinker.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

If the Canadian Prime Minister is supported by a majority in the House of Commons, he or she is almost quite literally an autocrat until the next election. House MPs will *always always always* stick to the party line. They know that they have no future in the party if they don't, and the whips must be crazy intimidating.
Add that to the fact that residual powers go to the feds rather than provinces, and you've got a very powerful head of government.

In theory the Senate is a check on the House of Commons, but the PM can appoint Senators more or less on a whim, so they're really just a waste of everybody's time.

In theory the Queen (or her representative, the Governor General) could intervene in extreme circumstances, but in practice I believe this to be impossible.


Basically, the PM of a majority government has all but limitless power.

[poetryofimage]

Considering Plato thought up totalitarian rule by the elites, I don't see how the philospher-king would make things any better.

[quote name='Era Might' date='26 March 2010 - 06:37 PM' timestamp='1269646668' post='2080961']
Hmmmm. I actually have a book title you might be interested in about propaganda. I guess propaganda is a factor...but I don't see how having the people vote directly is going to solve the fact that the election process is, to quote a song by The Roots, a "world of politics and mascara."

In my opinion, a philosopher-politician, someone who truly asks the right questions, has no chance to succeed in our modern system. I actually think that it's easier to be a philosopher-king in a monarchical system than it is to be a philosopher-politician in our modern system.
[/quote]

[poetryofimage]

You need to step back for a moment and compare the historical President to the modern President. Historically, advisors had to be confirmed by the Senate. Now, Bush and Obama have taken to appointing Czars that are accountable to no one. Historically, Presidents were the final veto on bad laws. Now the executive talks of wanting a line item veto which would enable it to rewrite laws. The modern presidency is an enormous power-grab that hardly resembles the institution of the 1700s.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='26 March 2010 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1269660250' post='2081093']
The point is an effective separation of powers and a system that counteracts the tendencies of concentrated power. The benevolent, paternal, philosopher-king is basically a myth but even were is true, a good master is still a master. But this is off-topic. I wonder if the presidency is superfluous and the current nature of our "executive branch" is inferior to some more democratic alternative. I'm not trying to be so radical here as to debate the fundamental idea of the government. This isn't supposed to be an anarchy thread. I just wonder why we need a president and if it is really worth it. Let's say that the Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the rest of it stays, but let us then presume that the executive branch is disordered because of the powers of the presidency and that these powers ought to be limited and/or possibly turned over to a new thing; perhaps an executive congress.
[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' date='26 March 2010 - 11:27 PM' timestamp='1269660461' post='2081096']
"Propaganda" by Jacques Ellul. I haven't read this book yet, but I know Ellul from some of his other writings. He's an interesting thinker.
[/quote]
Nice. I know of Ellul from secondary sources, particular his views on technology and all that jazz. Also, I'm quite sure that book is on my amazon wish list. haha.


[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/banana_rawk.gif[/img]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='27 March 2010 - 01:09 AM' timestamp='1269666588' post='2081150']
If the Canadian Prime Minister is supported by a majority in the House of Commons, he or she is almost quite literally an autocrat until the next election. House MPs will *always always always* stick to the party line. They know that they have no future in the party if they don't, and the whips must be crazy intimidating.
Add that to the fact that residual powers go to the feds rather than provinces, and you've got a very powerful head of government.

In theory the Senate is a check on the House of Commons, but the PM can appoint Senators more or less on a whim, so they're really just a waste of everybody's time.

In theory the Queen (or her representative, the Governor General) could intervene in extreme circumstances, but in practice I believe this to be impossible.


Basically, the PM of a majority government has all but limitless power.
[/quote]
Thanks Nihil!