I read this politics article & thought of you guys. Just an excellent take on the tension between the narrow, rigidly defined role of president as defined in the constitution vs the almost holy status the job has inherited in the celebrity-worshipping society of today.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14082968

It doesn't seem to be in doubt that collectively, we are elavating government far beyond its traditional role, maybe to avoid responsibility for our own actions, or because the more traditional "higher powers" are not the source of comfort and meaning that they once were.

Is it a problem? What do we do about it? Any of the old politics hounds around here have a view?

Good article - and I commend it to all who stop by here. although I am an Obama fan, and I expect a lot from him, i am also a long time critic of the expansion of power to the Exceutive Branch. Ever since I became aware of what the War Powers Act stated, and what it entailed - i have been uneasy about how much power this one branch of goovenrment has been accruing.

I would like to see congress re-assert its traditional roles and play a much bigger role in governance. Too much power in the hands of one man is a prescription for disaster and is something of persistent concern to this writer.

Stag Lord said:

Its funny sometimes how opposite political positions can be. I am not an Obama fan, but I am a proponent of the expansion of the powers of the Executive Branch. Sometimes I feel like Congress has outlived its usefulness and should be abolished completely, or replaced with a Parliamentary form of representation, so that minority viewpoints can have their voices heard, instead of the stupid Republican-Democrat bickering.

I am personally staunchly Conservative, but I hate the two-party system, and I do not identify as Republican...

My favorite Supreme Court Justice is Clarence Thomas, who is often the most vocal proponent of Executive Power. He's awesome.

I take it you're a big **** Cheney fan too, huh Joe? He has done more than almost anyone in our history to expand the powers of the Executive.

I am, actually. :-)

Yeah - I'm not really into the dictator on the balcony kinda thing so I think I'll stick with Constitution and the whole separation of powers bag.

Lol i didn't realize we still followed that thing.

King of the Saltwives said:

Depends on who you ask... ;-)

Hahah, well, i feel the same as you Jim. I just didn't think that thing, this "constitution" existed anymore lol.

What a terribly pointless article.

I'm SHOCKED that Obama is taking a strong leadership position. I'm SHOCKED that he is doing what he thinks is necessary to fix certain problems, like health care and education and energy, that he will ultimately be judged on. I'm SHOCKED that he's following in the steps of every modern president in how much power he wields.

I find it peculiar that Conservatives can worship Reagan, and I don't know what other word you'd call it other than "worship", while being afraid of some people, especially those in the black community, that are excited about Obama. Seriously, if you think people are fans of Obama you should be on the other side of the fence while people try to contort their world view so that it more closely resembles what they think Reagan believed in. The only people that scare me more are LaRouchites and Paultards.

Yes, the government is barely recognizable from what the Founding Fathers put into place. You know why that is? Because the nation is irrecognizable from then as well. The Founding Fathers made sure the Constitution was elastic enough to grow and develop as the nation did. They did not see the Constitution as a millstone around our necks as "Originalists" (or whatever BS term those cretins call themselves this week) would have us believe.

That article is so bipolar. It complains about government, specifically the execute branch, gaining too much power. At the same time it complains that the people want the executive power to gain more power to fix all these problems. I'm not sure what the point is of the article. The article doesn't explain a better way to fix these problems without government involvement or supposed expansion of executive powers which are mostly kept in check by the legislative passing laws. I'm not sure the author knows how a republic works or what a government is for.

Missed you, Casey.

Missed you, Jesse.

complord said:

There seems to be something in human nature (which some call "original sin") that tends to abrogate responsibility, pass blame, and create idols and false messiahs in the continually vain hope that some ubermensch can solve our problems for us.

My problem with concentrating power in one person's hands is that there are no perfect people, and power does tend to corrupt. As one theologian put it, until absolute power is joined to absolute love, it will only result in harm. One significant reason we're seeing "two Americas" and such vitriolic contention in national politics is that we've departed from the Founders emphasis on balance of power and states rights.

When every political battle is fought at the national level, and is an "all or nothing" situation, it risks causing conflict and intractable stances. The founders intended for pluralism and protected that by allowing each state to serve as a sort of laboratory for social and economic policies. It distributes risk and limits loss, and when you find a model that is successful, then you can apply it nationally. But that's not what we do today.

Either all states have to allow abortion or none do.

Either all permit gay marriage or none do.

Either there is state-run healthcare or private.

What if we allowed individual states to be the ones to test different systems? To take the national approach alone is hideously stupid--similar to saying, "Put all your money in AIG, and no others" or "Let's have one scientific team get all the money to try one approach to curing cancer". If we let the states act as they were intended, we'd have engines of innovation to create new tools for progress (fifty labs exploring fifty different cures for cancer, rather than one federal lab), and we'd limit catastrophic loss (oh, you're okay because you had fifty stocks, and only AIG got hit).

Sometimes I just want to give up. The politics of obstructionism just don't seem to go away, and even when teh democrats have sweeping majorities, they still seem to cowardly to doantying baout it. Its like Bush is still in office - when are these guys going to learn how to fight?

Fred Barnes, the conservative commentator writes:

Republicans are discovering just how effective an opposition party can be in Washington. Their strategy is simply to aggressively and relentlessly oppose the liberal agenda of the president and the Democratic Congress. As a result, Barack Obama’s agenda is in jeopardy, and the president is disconcerted, less popular and on the defensive.

Republican opposition isn’t the only reason for this. Mr. Obama did himself no favors by pushing policies far more liberal than voters wanted. But the decision by Republicans to be combative rather than accommodating has played an indispensable role.

Ridiculous. Obama's halth care paln is far from being liberal enough to effect serious reform. Its merely a start, a door op-ener. But it looks like the democrats can't even muster the resolve to get THIS done. Now - at a time when they ahve the muscle and capital to pull it off. Its just so frustrating.

Yep - sort of seems like neither side really grasps the fact that the Democrats are in government now.

I saw an interesting post on another forum about that: as the Repubs get more and more dominated by their angry base, they move futher from the political centre, scaring off the moderates or undecideds; but that in turn reduces the voice of moderates in the party, putting the party even more into the grip of the angries. With their broad tent shrinking away, their only path back to power is through government failure, which gives them a perverse incentive to screw up and/or oppose everything in sight. If that's true, Obama will never be able to "reach across the aisles" on anything, leaving him dependent on his timid party crunching things through over the republicans screeching objections.

Presidential power thwarted - but by political pathology rather than constitutional checks.

See here - a great summary of the problem: http://www.forumopolis.com/showthread.php?t=89911

I'm at the point where I think he should just stop bothering to try and rach across the aisle. You see a guy like Grassley pretened to be a voice of bi partisanship, then hit the sticks with stories of death panels, and brag how he has delayed the process - and you just get the sense that they are all obstructionists.

And the right is willing to lie and prey on the fears of the uninformed to get results - like with the death panels.I am convinced that they aren't interested in dialgoue or compromise and at this point you may as well use the majorities you have in Congress to ram health care and climate change dwon their thorats. We tried working with them - they aren't interested.

Where's the GOP plan for heal;th care reform that expands coverage while lowering costs? Nowhere.

Well traditionaly the GOP Plan would be to let folks take care of themselves.

As for the expansion of the executive branch... that's what the public wants. The government follows the will of the people. When we wanted land... Andrew Jackson overturned a Supreme Court ruling and forced the Cherokee on the trail of tears. When we wanted to hide in a white-washed plastic suburban society... goverment provided segregation and censorship. When the Japanese bombed us and we wanted vengence... we dropped a little fat man on them. Oh... and locked Japanese Americans up in our own concentration camps... we just didn't make lampshades and soap out of them (Americans just don't like to recycle).

When we wanted to dump our fear of nuclear war into someone, Joe McCarthy provided. Then when we didn't want to take the responsibility... he provided again. Our own fear over Pearl Harbor... and being attacked again led us to take a proactive approach in the world. Our guilt over our own atrocities has led us to become world police... but governments do what we want or let them do... after all there is more of us then of them.

I for one would like to reduce federal power overall... that's not to say I don't believe in public healthcare... but I think the public can come up with it's own healthcare much better than the government can.

The government should not be a moral leader... if you want that, go find a philosopher or a priest.

All those examples you gave were amoral. I obviously have to agree that the people don't always want what is best for them. I hardly think you can make the same argument with universal health care though.

The way Obama is running the country right now shows his political naivety. He doesn't understand that political opponents will attack him even if it doesn't make logical sense. He also doesn't understand that reaching across the aisle usually hurts legislation more than makes it better because it doesn't make anybody happy. Obama needs to start spending that political capital he has.

I'm not sure if what Obama is doing shows his naivety. He made a lot of concessions to the Republicans not because he wanted to get rid of the Public Option or other things but instead to illustrate how there is no partner to work with. This has also allowed the focus to be on Grassley and other Republicans instead of obstructionist Democrats like Baucus.

I think if you want healthcare and want what europe and canada has... then seize it.

The civil rights act did not get passed beacuase washington wanted it... it got passed because of Martin Luther King, because of Detroit and LA. It got passed by a southern democratic president... because we gave him no better alternative.

You want health care... give the government an offer they can't refuse.

You can't equate the civil rights movement to health care reform because there is way too much money to lose. The reason we have the crappy plan offered to us that we do is because of lobbyists and politics as usual. Single payer is the only option that makes sense and will actually work but it won't happen because of all the money to be had. If Obama doesn't get some sort of health care reform though, no matter how useless, his entire first term will be deemed a failure and will have a tough time in 2012 let alone the rest of this term.

An offer that can't refuse you say? How about the insane amount of medical bankruptcies? How about the deaths caused by denial of care from insurance companies and lack of care after emergencies for uninsured? How about the bankrupting of the country caused by rising medical costs? What else has to happen?

Stag Lord said:

I'd suggest that the politics of obstructionism used by both parties exists because of the nationalization ("all or nothing" attitude) of power.

I mean really, when a person wants to live in a way you might find crazy or morally objectionable, most people don't care (or even notice) as long as that person lives elsewhere. There is a "live and let live" attitude, for the most part, and if you stay out of my business, I'll stay out of yours. It's when a person's values are threatened within their community, or the contrary belief is forced on them that they become "obstructionist" or hostile.

Take a contentious issue like gay marriage. I submit to you that even people like me (who hold to the Catholic Church's view that it is disordered) wouldn't have a problem with a few states/communities choosing to allow gay marriage--so long as you don't take away my freedom of association or speech on the matter. I couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. It's not my business. But when you try and tell people they have to publicly accept something contrary to their views, or provide financial benefits out of their wage, that's when you get 72% of Missourians voting to change the state constitution to recognize only heterosexual marriage.

If you believe government run healthcare would be superior to the current system, move to a state that has it (Mass.), or pass a plan in your state. But then don't cry spilled milk when you find out its cost, as in Massachusetts, " is up to $1.3 billion for 2009, well above the $387 million originally budgeted when it was passed earlier this decade." (Couldn't this horrible budget overrun be another reason people don't trust a state plan? Hmmm....)

I agree in principle that localities can best determine what works best for their citizens.

But Obama has been dealing with a series of national crises, crises that demand nothing short of national attention and consensus. Teh democracts supported Bush up until the Iraq occupation started going south - we were faced with a national emergency and we came together. The health care disaster affects every Amercian even more directly than the terrorist attacks did - adn demand similar unity.

I love how states' rights are brought out whenever the Democrats are in control.

Some issues are too large to be addressed on a state by state basis. I don't see Montana going it alone in the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, afterall.

Furthermore, it seems weird and self destructive that states that posture for states' rights are also the ones that receive more money from the Federal Government than they put in. I grew up in Puerto Rico and one thing I learned there was that Puerto Rico will never be indepedent nor will it be a state, they have too good a deal there where they get Federal money but pay very little in.

Basically, this notion of states' rights is suicidal for many states. Who believes for a second that many states in the "heartland" could survive without Federal money for roads, education, healthcare, or farm subsidies?

I live in Virginia and we have a very similar problem. Virginia has Northern Virginia and "Rest of Virginia". If you drive down 95 from the North you won't reach a Virginia welcome center until Fredericksburg, about 75 miles south of the border. Most of Virginia resents Northern Virginia because many people who live up here aren't from Virginia but we pay for most of the rest of the state in our taxes. I work for George Mason University and while we're the second largest university in Virginia we receive much smaller amounts of state money, by any measure, than almost every other university because we're not seen as sufficiently "Virginian".

Basically, I'm tired of people from states that don't pay their own fair share say that the Federal Government is too large. That states' rights should exist. That they're somehow more American than us dirty city dwellers and our appreciation for multiculturalism and education.

Artaban is still a ridiculous person. My time away from the boards has not changed that. Somehow removing instutitionalist bigotry against homosexuals, which is so clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment as to be comedic, is telling "people they have to publicly accept something contrary to their views. . ." That there is not a deeper appreciation of equal protection and equal rights scares me. I get it, Christians oppose gay marriage because the Jewish part of the Bible. Nevermind the fact that the cultural context of "men lying with men" wasn't two dudes being in love but soldiers ****** those they had just defeated in battle. Nevermind that all of those other parts of the Bible, you know that New Testament stuff, is basically a Marxist pamphlet. As a Jew, albeit increasingly secular one, I always resent Christians putting meaning and importance to things Jews have long ago recontextualized or otherwise dismiss. We no longer stone those that mix cotton and wool nor do we sell our daughters into slavery.

The 'community' doesn't always have the resources, skills, people, etc. to counteract most problems. This is why governments exist: to help communities get the resources, skills, people, etc. that they need to function. What you are basically proposing is anarchy, which I'm not against actually, in that the people of each community should decide how they are governed. The problem with this is that the community can only use what the community has thus no money from county, state, and/or federal sources. If you want to have your slice of regressive, theocratic, byzantine America, go right ahead, but be ready to support it all with your own community's money, skills and people.

Also, Casey said what I always wanted to say: Artaban, you are a ridiculous person. Your fundamental lack of understanding of logic, morality, laws, government, etc. is astounding. Also, your reading comprehension is quite poor as well.