BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA?

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA?
From: olddude
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 08:48 AM

Thank you ... I stand corrected, that is why I asked the question

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 12:08 PM

Yes Joe,

Of course there is an element of truth. But it is still obviously an insult and an obviously an attack.


Just as if an American were to call Prince Charles "Tampon Chuck" there would be an even greater element of truth because the man famously said that he wanted to be Camila's tampon.

It does not have to be untrue to be an attack.

In fact true or partly true things are usually the most effective verbal attacks.

Its pretty clear that the title of the tread is a tit for tat attack on Amos' thread. Keeping in mind that the Presidency heads the executive arm of the US government and that the government departments need to be run, it is obvious that much of the President's responsibility cannot be obsolete as long as there is a US government and as as long as those responsibilities are not assigned to another office.

It may also be noted that Mandotim's argument that "coalition of media owners, bankers, arms manufacturers, very rich people and right wing Christian pressure groups., very rich people and right wing Christian pressure groups." are running the country to the exclusion of the voters has nothing to do with the viability of the office of President. In fact I find his point to be very ironic. The House of Lords is an institution in the UK government specifically meant to give a voice to the rich and powerful. It is indeed a coalition of media owners, bankers, arms manufacturers and very rich people.

Is Mandotim saying that the Presidency should be replaced by a local version of the House of Lords?

It might be a good idea to cut out the middlemen, the lobbyists and the media, but that would put a lot of smart people out of work. Remember that idle hands do the Devil's work.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 06:20 PM

Emma's right there - people poke fun at the Royal Family all the time. Even if someone objects to that it's generally because they feel sympathy towards the targets as human beings, not because of some sense of offended patriotism. There are always exceptions of course, but they'd be likely to be seen, correctly, as oddballs, and you get those anywhere.)

...............

In my opinion in a democracy the people are responsible for the political system. That would imply there was some practicable way of changing that system - and that certainly doesn't really seem to be the case with the US system, even more so than in other places.

For example, if the Scots decide they want independence, and vote for it, they'll get independence. (The English have learnt a bit from their Irish experience.) If a majority of people decide they want rid of the monarchy, and vote in a Parliament where the majority is committed to abolishing it, the monarchy will be eliminated.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 06:39 PM

McGrath of Harlow

>>>In my opinion in a democracy the people are responsible for the political system. That would imply there was some practicable way of changing that system - and that certainly doesn't really seem to be the case with the US system, even more so than in other places.<<<

If things in the US were as bad as Mandotim has said and as simple as Mandotim has implied that it is, it would be a relatively simple for 51% to take back the country.

The fact is that it is difficult to change because 51% cannot agree on what change they want.

Of course Tim has conveniently forgotten that the "right wing Christian pressure groups." actually do represent by and large the views of about a quarter of the country. I do not often agree with these people but I can't dismiss them out of hand like Tim has. I also would never agree with his prescription >>Why not just let those with real power (media owners, bankers, arms manufacturers, very rich people and right wing Christian pressure groups) get on with it<<

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 07:35 PM

"In my opinion in a democracy the people are responsible for the political system."

That was a quote on which I was commenting, not something I had said myself - that's why I had it in italics. My point was that it's not really true.

So far as I'm aware there is no constitutional way for setting up a fresh Constitutional Convention in the USA. And without that, there seems no way that "a 51% majority" (or something a lot larger for that matter) would be able to make too much difference). And it appears that no kind of majority would allow a part of the USA to leave the Union.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 08:20 PM

McGrath of Harlow

Obviously you and I have completely different concepts of what democracy is.

That's OK, I don't have anything else to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA?
From: gnu
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 09:18 PM

Ya can't leave the union (any union) unless you have the money or you make a money deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 06:27 AM

Of course you can, gnu. Happens all the time. Not a good idea most times, but it happens. Sometimes it is a good idea.
.......................

As for democracy, Jack, my view is that being imperfect does not mean a country's political system may not be a democracy, and that being a democracy does not mean that a country's political system is perfect. The USA and the UK are both examples of democracies with political systems that are a long way from perfect, but that's par for the course.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 06:52 AM

Someone once explained to me that the American constitution was deliberately designed to ensure that too much power could accumulate in one place. Separation of powers means just that, and requires the co-operation of all the constitutional elements for something to be achieved. Just because a president is periodically elected at great expense and fanfare tends to obscure that fact that in reality his hands are largely tied.

To compare the US Presidency with the British Monarchy is misleading - their roles are quite different just as the two countries' constitutions are very different. The British system has evolved, and keeps evolving, over time in response to circumstances. The Monarchy has proved remarkably resilient, and although it has handed over most of its powers to Parliament these are still exercised in the name of the Crown. It is worth bearing in mind that the Crown has changed hands many times, and sometimes the System has been quite ruthless in making changes - bringing in the Stuarts, for example, before executing one and throwing out another and bringing in a foreigner.

No one designing a constitution from scratch would invent the House of Lords. Nevertheless there is something to be said for having an overseeing body made up of people with experience and expertise, and who are not subject to the short-termist and populist pressures of politics. It's powers were limited, and in any contest the elected House of Commons would invariably win (usually this would turn out to be a mistake). It is now being reformed to make it more democratically accountable, but no one is really sure how this will affect the balance of power between the two Houses.

Of course, both systems, as in any country, are in practice susceptible to influence by people who want to make the system work to their advantage and who can provide what the politicians want, whether that's money or popular support. It's hard to prevent that, and all the voter can do is to punish the politicians at the next opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 01:02 PM

In the US the head of the government (administration) is the President
The Head of State is the President
The Head(s) of the Legislature are The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader

In UK the Prime Minister is the Head of Governement and the legislature.
The Queen is the Head of State.

In many other countries The President is the Head of State while the Prime minister runs the Government and the legislature.

In some countries, notably Russia, The roles are more fluid.

Generally Head of State is more ceremonial and symbolic but those ceremonies and that symbolism is nearly universally seen to be essential.

Keeping that in mind it is obvious that the roles of the Presidency and the Monarchy are not obsolete. But the is legitimate room for debate as to who can best serve those needs.

Countries like Canada fill the need of Head of state without either expensive, elections, or The cost of the upkeep of a royal family. So at least there are more practical ways to fill the need. On the other hand, while people Visit London to see the Palaces and Washington to see the White house, almost no one cares about seeing the Governor General's mansion.