Does the US even need a President?

[The Three Palins]

Let's ask the real question, does the US even need the US?

There's a thread for that:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=495762

[The Three Palins]

Without the electoral college system, rural and unpopulated areas would be left without a voice. The only advantage I see to a system that was most relevant during the Pony Express era.

The Electoral College gives the most reactionary sectors of society an outsized voice in choosing an Executive.

Defining the voters of the smallest-by-population states as "the most reactionary" is quite unfair.

One of them is Vermont too.

[Adamede]

On the one hand, the US hasn't had a President for the last four years. On the other hand, those were four of the most fucked up years the country has ever had. So yes, the US needs a President, a competent one, which is to say not a Republican.

The US did have a president.
Being Republican ≠ incompetence every time.

Don’t take the bait dude. There are just some people who have tunnel vision when it comes politics.

Let's ask the real question, does the US even need the US?

Unless you want the quality of life of millions of people to dramatically drop and possibly start a war that kills thousands, if not millions, yes.

[Page]

The Presidency should at least be neutered if not abolished. The sheer amount of power a President has to wield the military is terrifying. I would like a Constitutional Amendment that forbids the President for doing any act of war including drone strikes except in the event of a direct attack or the imminent threat of a direct attack on the United States or an ally, and even then Congress should be summoned to come together as soon as possible to decide further action.

[Atheris]

Obviously. What kind of question is this?

[Romextly]

Yes.

[Torisakia]

We need to let a magic 8 ball make all the decision for the country. It would be much more reliable.

[The Two Jerseys]

Yes.

First off, having a head of state that can be removed at any time by a simple majority vote is a stupid idea.

Second, a head of state whose job security depends on pleasing Congress isn't going to be a check against congressional power run amok.

Third, the President's executive authority is critically important in emergencies where Congress is unable to convene in a timely manner. The President can also delegate authority to federal agencies, allowing them to implement their own internal policies without the need for an Act of Congress.

Fourth, commanding an army by committee never goes well.

[The Three Palins]

Yes.

First off, having a head of state that can be removed at any time by a simple majority vote is a stupid idea.

No. It's a great idea. They can't use emergency powers or a temporary corruption of the legislature to make themselves dictator.

Do me a favor, and make a list of the most disastrous Heads of State. Up the top are a lot of kings, correct. Then dictators and Presidents. Then the Prime Ministers, including some who were well on the way to becoming massive fuckups when either the Parliament or the People removed them.

Second, a head of state whose job security depends on pleasing Congress isn't going to be a check against congressional power run amok.

Third, the President's executive authority is critically important in emergencies where Congress is unable to convene in a timely manner.

Well OK, by the time they've hitched up their team of horses and brought themselves to the Capitol, the dastardly British who served the King but took orders from Parliament would have over-run Vermont and upstate New York.

Meanwhile in the 20th Century and since, the military commander gets on the phone to the Head of State, briefs them and seeks new orders. It makes essentially no difference if the Head of State is a PM or a President.

Thatcher had some of her Cabinet with her (a War Cabinet) when she ordered torpedoes be fired at the General Belgrano. But she didn't even need that. She could have made the decision entirely on her own and certainly DID NOT need a majority vote in Parliament.

The President can also delegate authority to federal agencies, allowing them to implement their own internal policies without the need for an Act of Congress.

Fourth, commanding an army by committee never goes well.

Congress can delegate authority to Cabinet secretaries, as can a President. To argue that complex legislation should be passed through one person to then be delegated to the multiple Secretaries is entirely dubious. A President cannot even read all the legislation, and relies on the advice of unelected advisors to delegate to the constitutionally provided Cabinet. That Cabinet are now reduced to mere functionaries of the President, rather than real delegates of power like the Cabinet of a Parliament, is NOT a sign of a system that is working well.

And next year we may see it fail catastrophically. The Senate may over-use its power to deny appointment of Cabinet members, and the deputy Secretaries who are career civil servants (neither appointed nor elected) will have to do the job for them. The appointments process (and thus the role of the President) may turn out to be not just optional, but sup-optimal. Deputies may do a better job.

The worst military failures have been under the command of dictators who refused the advice of their Generals. Command by committee on the other hand, works better: if the committee are all Generals.

[The Three Palins]

Obviously. What kind of question is this?

Plenty of other democracies have no President. Some don't even have a Senate.

How about a compromise. Like in a Parliamentary democracy, the head honcho must have a record in office, in fact in the Parliament, and win their district as well as the Presidency. But as in a Presidential system, they are directly elected by the voters.

All incumbents running for House or Senate would be on the national ballot for President. If they don't keep their district they can't be President. It goes to the next highest. If they die, or become ineligible by a felony conviction in court, or are impeached, the office goes to the next highest. Impeachment would be by two-thirds majority of either House or Senate, and at least majority of the other.

[Atheris]

Obviously. What kind of question is this?

Plenty of other democracies have no President. Some don't even have a Senate.

That wouldn't work. The office of President is vital to the United States. The Balance of Power is non-negotiable.

[The Two Jerseys]

Yes.

First off, having a head of state that can be removed at any time by a simple majority vote is a stupid idea.

No. It's a great idea. They can't use emergency powers or a temporary corruption of the legislature to make themselves dictator.

Do me a favor, and make a list of the most disastrous Heads of State. Up the top are a lot of kings, correct. Then dictators and Presidents. Then the Prime Ministers, including some who were well on the way to becoming massive fuckups when either the Parliament or the People removed them.

Prime ministers are heads of government, not heads of state. The reason they don't fuck up as badly as kings and presidents is because said king or president would've dissolved parliament and called for new elections before things got that bad.

Second, a head of state whose job security depends on pleasing Congress isn't going to be a check against congressional power run amok.

Third, the President's executive authority is critically important in emergencies where Congress is unable to convene in a timely manner.

Well OK, by the time they've hitched up their team of horses and brought themselves to the Capitol, the dastardly British who served the King but took orders from Parliament would have over-run Vermont and upstate New York.

Meanwhile in the 20th Century and since, the military commander gets on the phone to the Head of State, briefs them and seeks new orders. It makes essentially no difference if the Head of State is a PM or a President.

Thatcher had some of her Cabinet with her (a War Cabinet) when she ordered torpedoes be fired at the General Belgrano. But she didn't even need that. She could have made the decision entirely on her own and certainly DID NOT need a majority vote in Parliament.

Thatcher had Parliament and popular support on her side, her job was never endangered by giving that order. FDR wouldn't have been so quick to order the US Navy to shoot U-boats on sight in September 1941 if a non-interventionist Congress could've removed him from office the very next day.

The President can also delegate authority to federal agencies, allowing them to implement their own internal policies without the need for an Act of Congress.

Fourth, commanding an army by committee never goes well.

Congress can delegate authority to Cabinet secretaries, as can a President. To argue that complex legislation should be passed through one person to then be delegated to the multiple Secretaries is entirely dubious. A President cannot even read all the legislation, and relies on the advice of unelected advisors to delegate to the constitutionally provided Cabinet. That Cabinet are now reduced to mere functionaries of the President, rather than real delegates of power like the Cabinet of a Parliament, is NOT a sign of a system that is working well.

And next year we may see it fail catastrophically. The Senate may over-use its power to deny appointment of Cabinet members, and the deputy Secretaries who are career civil servants (neither appointed nor elected) will have to do the job for them. The appointments process (and thus the role of the President) may turn out to be not just optional, but sup-optimal. Deputies may do a better job.

Laws direct the President to take measures to implement and enforce them, how he chooses to do so is up to him unless the law specifically states otherwise. Delegating those powers to the Cabinet only creates many petty dictators who are accountable to no immediate superior and who can't be overruled in a timely manner if they implement bad policies.

The worst military failures have been under the command of dictators who refused the advice of their Generals. Command by committee on the other hand, works better: if the committee are all Generals.

Congress aren't generals. If they tried to command the armed forces during the Civil War or World War II, it would've been a massive clusterfuck.

[The Three Palins]

No. It's a great idea. They can't use emergency powers or a temporary corruption of the legislature to make themselves dictator.

Do me a favor, and make a list of the most disastrous Heads of State. Up the top are a lot of kings, correct. Then dictators and Presidents. Then the Prime Ministers, including some who were well on the way to becoming massive fuckups when either the Parliament or the People removed them.

Prime ministers are heads of government, not heads of state. The reason they don't fuck up as badly as kings and presidents is because said king or president would've dissolved parliament and called for new elections before things got that bad.

A King who is really bad at governing and makes big mistakes ... would dissolve parliament and call for new elections. Quite apart from the assumption that there's a parliament or elections, this just doesn't make any sense.

The US President can't dissolve Congress or change the date of elections. That he's so hard for Congress to depose is something you said was good, remember?

Laws direct the President to take measures to implement and enforce them, how he chooses to do so is up to him unless the law specifically states otherwise. Delegating those powers to the Cabinet only creates many petty dictators who are accountable to no immediate superior and who can't be overruled in a timely manner if they implement bad policies.

Unless you have some hick Congress that only sits every second year, sure they can be replaced. And they don't need approval of the Senate either.

The worst military failures have been under the command of dictators who refused the advice of their Generals. Command by committee on the other hand, works better: if the committee are all Generals.

Congress aren't generals. If they tried to command the armed forces during the Civil War or World War II, it would've been a massive clusterfuck.

Says you.

This case you're making for Presidents having more effective command in war, than Prime Ministers do, does not seem to be backed by any examples other than hypothetical outcomes if they had been otherwise. The Civil War might never even have happened, without so much power falling suddenly into the hands of an anti-slaver. And yeah, it probably would have been longer before the slaves were freed. And on the other hand, a peaceful resolution (probably involving compensation for slave owners) would have led to better outcomes for African Americans in the century after that. Playing hypotheticals is dumb.

You should make that list I mentioned. Because if "getting the US involved in wars" is the best thing you can say for having a President (besides the dubious assertion that a single commander leads to better war decisions), then you're making my point for me. Presidents are a liability.

[Ard al Islam]

You make a mistake. The President can make executive orders without Congressional approval.

[Punished UMN]

I mean, you don't need a whole lot of things, but they're convenient to have.

[Center Land]

We are going to find out if we need a President. Looks like we won’t have one for the next four years.

[The Giant Space Wyrm]

I feel we should replace the epitaph of President with "Big Cheese".

[The Two Jerseys]

Prime ministers are heads of government, not heads of state. The reason they don't fuck up as badly as kings and presidents is because said king or president would've dissolved parliament and called for new elections before things got that bad.

A King who is really bad at governing and makes big mistakes ... would dissolve parliament and call for new elections. Quite apart from the assumption that there's a parliament or elections, this just doesn't make any sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense, it's not even what I said.

The US President can't dissolve Congress or change the date of elections. That he's so hard for Congress to depose is something you said was good, remember?

The President doesn't need to dissolve Congress, the executive branch doesn't require the confidence of Congress to exercise its power.

Laws direct the President to take measures to implement and enforce them, how he chooses to do so is up to him unless the law specifically states otherwise. Delegating those powers to the Cabinet only creates many petty dictators who are accountable to no immediate superior and who can't be overruled in a timely manner if they implement bad policies.

Unless you have some hick Congress that only sits every second year, sure they can be replaced. And they don't need approval of the Senate either.

Meanwhile, it takes the President a whole five minutes to tell the Attorney General "your policy of requiring FBI agents to be fluent in Swahili is dumb, drop it now"...

Congress aren't generals. If they tried to command the armed forces during the Civil War or World War II, it would've been a massive clusterfuck.

Says you.

This case you're making for Presidents having more effective command in war, than Prime Ministers do, does not seem to be backed by any examples other than hypothetical outcomes if they had been otherwise. The Civil War might never even have happened, without so much power falling suddenly into the hands of an anti-slaver. And yeah, it probably would have been longer before the slaves were freed. And on the other hand, a peaceful resolution (probably involving compensation for slave owners) would have led to better outcomes for African Americans in the century after that. Playing hypotheticals is dumb.

Playing hypotheticals is dumb, because in a parliamentary system the Republicans would've still had a majority and Abraham Lincoln would have been prime minister.

You should make that list I mentioned. Because if "getting the US involved in wars" is the best thing you can say for having a President (besides the dubious assertion that a single commander leads to better war decisions), then you're making my point for me. Presidents are a liability.

Lincoln had to appoint incompetent commanders like Nathaniel Banks and Benjamin Butler to appease the Northern Democrats and Franz Sigel because he would get German immigrants to enlist.

If an independent executive had to bow to political pressure like that, clearly a prime minister who could lose his job tomorrow if he didn't commission enough people with the right political connections today would only appoint well-qualified, West Point-trained offers to senior commands...

[The Three Palins]

A King who is really bad at governing and makes big mistakes ... would dissolve parliament and call for new elections. Quite apart from the assumption that there's a parliament or elections, this just doesn't make any sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense, it's not even what I said.

The US President can't dissolve Congress or change the date of elections. That he's so hard for Congress to depose is something you said was good, remember?

The President doesn't need to dissolve Congress, the executive branch doesn't require the confidence of Congress to exercise its power.

Unless you have some hick Congress that only sits every second year, sure they can be replaced. And they don't need approval of the Senate either.

Meanwhile, it takes the President a whole five minutes to tell the Attorney General "your policy of requiring FBI agents to be fluent in Swahili is dumb, drop it now"...

Says you.

This case you're making for Presidents having more effective command in war, than Prime Ministers do, does not seem to be backed by any examples other than hypothetical outcomes if they had been otherwise. The Civil War might never even have happened, without so much power falling suddenly into the hands of an anti-slaver. And yeah, it probably would have been longer before the slaves were freed. And on the other hand, a peaceful resolution (probably involving compensation for slave owners) would have led to better outcomes for African Americans in the century after that. Playing hypotheticals is dumb.

Playing hypotheticals is dumb, because in a parliamentary system the Republicans would've still had a majority and Abraham Lincoln would have been prime minister.

Assuming that is so, you're still assuming that the South would have seceded ... just because Lincoln became Prime Minister. That's a pretty big assumption, which runs contrary to your claim that Presidents are better than Prime Ministers because they are more effective at leading the nation to war. The filling of a single office precipitated the Confederate secession, because that is such a powerful office. Needless to say, Prime Ministers don't have as much power, and being wielded through their Parliament it is not added power on top of control of Congress.

But I suppose persuading you that the US Civil War was actually a bad thing, will just give you an opportunity to label me a slavery supporter?

The existence of the Presidency is so fundamental to the US idea of what government is, that blaming the institution for the civil war, the Vietnam War and every variety of colonialist warmongery since, would be some commie sacrilege against Freedom and Democracy. You need your King in mufti to rally the nation against foreign threats, and if that ends in the near extinction of humanity then what the hell.

Perhaps you see war as the ultimate expression of good government. I see it as the ultimate failure of same.

[SD_Film Artists]

No. It needs a monarch like the good old days.

[The Two Jerseys]

Of course it doesn't make sense, it's not even what I said.

The President doesn't need to dissolve Congress, the executive branch doesn't require the confidence of Congress to exercise its power.

Meanwhile, it takes the President a whole five minutes to tell the Attorney General "your policy of requiring FBI agents to be fluent in Swahili is dumb, drop it now"...

Playing hypotheticals is dumb, because in a parliamentary system the Republicans would've still had a majority and Abraham Lincoln would have been prime minister.

Assuming that is so, you're still assuming that the South would have seceded ... just because Lincoln became Prime Minister. That's a pretty big assumption, which runs contrary to your claim that Presidents are better than Prime Ministers because they are more effective at leading the nation to war. The filling of a single office precipitated the Confederate secession, because that is such a powerful office. Needless to say, Prime Ministers don't have as much power, and being wielded through their Parliament it is not added power on top of control of Congress.

Prime Minister Lincoln backed by a Republican majority Congress.

Right, the slave states could totally have come to some sort of compromise with them...

But I suppose persuading you that the US Civil War was actually a bad thing, will just give you an opportunity to label me a slavery supporter?

The existence of the Presidency is so fundamental to the US idea of what government is, that blaming the institution for the civil war, the Vietnam War and every variety of colonialist warmongery since, would be some commie sacrilege against Freedom and Democracy. You need your King in mufti to rally the nation against foreign threats, and if that ends in the near extinction of humanity then what the hell.

Perhaps you see war as the ultimate expression of good government. I see it as the ultimate failure of same.

Come back when you actually have an argument that isn't a strawman.

[The Three Palins]

Assuming that is so, you're still assuming that the South would have seceded ... just because Lincoln became Prime Minister. That's a pretty big assumption, which runs contrary to your claim that Presidents are better than Prime Ministers because they are more effective at leading the nation to war. The filling of a single office precipitated the Confederate secession, because that is such a powerful office. Needless to say, Prime Ministers don't have as much power, and being wielded through their Parliament it is not added power on top of control of Congress.

Prime Minister Lincoln backed by a Republican majority Congress.

Right, the slave states could totally have come to some sort of compromise with them...

But I suppose persuading you that the US Civil War was actually a bad thing, will just give you an opportunity to label me a slavery supporter?

The existence of the Presidency is so fundamental to the US idea of what government is, that blaming the institution for the civil war, the Vietnam War and every variety of colonialist warmongery since, would be some commie sacrilege against Freedom and Democracy. You need your King in mufti to rally the nation against foreign threats, and if that ends in the near extinction of humanity then what the hell.

Perhaps you see war as the ultimate expression of good government. I see it as the ultimate failure of same.

Come back when you actually have an argument that isn't a strawman.

Well you got bad tempered all of a sudden. Come back when you're willing the discuss the actual advantages of having a President.

Being accused of making a strawman argument when I was just coming back to the subject after a rather futile attempt to imagine America switching from Presidential to Parliamentary systems on the eve of the Civil War ... your idea btw ... is new to me. Is getting fixated on one event and my apparent misunderstanding of it, and then flat out refusing to zoom back out to the broader question at hand, typical debating behavior here?

Or do you see it as me starting an argument and then refusing to admit you won? You could see it that way. That's a personal choice, you don't even need to say it.

Or you could see our point of agreement: having a President rather than a Prime Minister does make the US more apt to go to war. Whether that includes the Civil War is something we'll never agree on, because the depth of historical scenario implied is unfathomable. All we fundamentally disagree on is whether going to war is usually a good thing, or usually a bad thing and nobody ever changes their mind about that.

[The Two Jerseys]

Prime Minister Lincoln backed by a Republican majority Congress.

Right, the slave states could totally have come to some sort of compromise with them...

Come back when you actually have an argument that isn't a strawman.

Well you got bad tempered all of a sudden. Come back when you're willing the discuss the actual advantages of having a President.

Being accused of making a strawman argument when I was just coming back to the subject after a rather futile attempt to imagine America switching from Presidential to Parliamentary systems on the eve of the Civil War ... your idea btw ... is new to me. Is getting fixated on one event and my apparent misunderstanding of it, and then flat out refusing to zoom back out to the broader question at hand, typical debating behavior here?

Or do you see it as me starting an argument and then refusing to admit you won? You could see it that way. That's a personal choice, you don't even need to say it.

Or you could see our point of agreement: having a President rather than a Prime Minister does make the US more apt to go to war. Whether that includes the Civil War is something we'll never agree on, because the depth of historical scenario implied is unfathomable. All we fundamentally disagree on is whether going to war is usually a good thing, or usually a bad thing and nobody ever changes their mind about that.

Fabricating an argument that I never made is the literal definition of a strawman argument:

But I suppose persuading you that the US Civil War was actually a bad thing, will just give you an opportunity to label me a slavery supporter?

The existence of the Presidency is so fundamental to the US idea of what government is, that blaming the institution for the civil war, the Vietnam War and every variety of colonialist warmongery since, would be some commie sacrilege against Freedom and Democracy. You need your King in mufti to rally the nation against foreign threats, and if that ends in the near extinction of humanity then what the hell.

Perhaps you see war as the ultimate expression of good government. I see it as the ultimate failure of same.

[The Three Palins]

Well you got bad tempered all of a sudden. Come back when you're willing the discuss the actual advantages of having a President.

Being accused of making a strawman argument when I was just coming back to the subject after a rather futile attempt to imagine America switching from Presidential to Parliamentary systems on the eve of the Civil War ... your idea btw ... is new to me. Is getting fixated on one event and my apparent misunderstanding of it, and then flat out refusing to zoom back out to the broader question at hand, typical debating behavior here?

Or do you see it as me starting an argument and then refusing to admit you won? You could see it that way. That's a personal choice, you don't even need to say it.

Or you could see our point of agreement: having a President rather than a Prime Minister does make the US more apt to go to war. Whether that includes the Civil War is something we'll never agree on, because the depth of historical scenario implied is unfathomable. All we fundamentally disagree on is whether going to war is usually a good thing, or usually a bad thing and nobody ever changes their mind about that.

Fabricating an argument that I never made is the literal definition of a strawman argument:

But I suppose persuading you that the US Civil War was actually a bad thing, will just give you an opportunity to label me a slavery supporter?

The existence of the Presidency is so fundamental to the US idea of what government is, that blaming the institution for the civil war, the Vietnam War and every variety of colonialist warmongery since, would be some commie sacrilege against Freedom and Democracy. You need your King in mufti to rally the nation against foreign threats, and if that ends in the near extinction of humanity then what the hell.

Perhaps you see war as the ultimate expression of good government. I see it as the ultimate failure of same.

The three paragraphs are separate, and only the first is speculating what line of argument you might take. It also ends with a question mark, which I thought adequately expressed that the "strawman argument" only MIGHT be the line you would take.

The second paragraph is quite heavy handed mockery of the US and the President. That you think I'm ascribing the opinion to you (ie strawmanning) is interesting ...

And the third paragraph is a quite plain statement of principle. War is bad. And that's not strawmanning either. That's where I purport to paraphrase your opinion then argue against it. But I didn't purport anything. I said "maybe you think ..." and I don't see any more polite way of getting an opinion out of you.


You must forgive me, but I anticipated that "you're racist!" line because it's my experience that when I speak against a war, I am very often accused of being on one or the other side of that war. Actually my position is that there should not have been a war. It was political incompetence on both sides which caused the war, and I admit that not having a war at all might have required a longer history of slavery in the US. You're welcome to argue against that being preferable, or even to go further astray in alternative history by putting more blame on the failure of Reconstruction than on the fighting of a war, for the really sub-optimal outcome. Or you might even say that the war should have been fought sooner, with fewer casualties for the same result. All are respectable positions. "TTL is for slavery and thinks the North were the aggressors, that's why they're against the war" is not.

Too often people learn the lesson from history, of how best to win a war. They don't learn enough from the longer part of history, when people managed to live and prosper without any damn war happening to them. It's not wrong that we pay so much attention to historical wars, since their influence on history is dramatic. But assuming that they had to happen at all is just hindsight mistaken for wisdom. How to avoid war is a much harder lesson to learn, because the historical evidence is less dramatic and in many cases not recorded.

The US Civil War is a particularly bad case to study, to determine whether having a President makes a country more prone to get involved in wars. And it's not even a good example of whether that applies to civil wars, because the Presidential system had been in place for nearly a century before that. To speculate about whether it would have happened with a parliamentary system instead, one would have to consider all the different circumstances of the country if it had been governed by a Parliament (presumably with a Senate as well) for all that time. And that is effectively impossible.

But to speculate anyway, I would say the Civil War was a failure of Democracy and of Federation, and whether it was Democracy of the Presidential kind, or the Parliamentary kind, is relatively unimportant. Stronger federalism from the start would have helped, but there's no guarantee States would have signed up for that.

Considering whether magically replacing one system with the other, just a few years before the war did happen, would have prevented it, is to imagine some magical healing power to parliamentary systems which I never suggested and have no intention of claiming. Marginally better over time, at preventing wars, is all I claim.

I will however add that making the President also the Supreme Commander of the armed forces seems extremely rash to me. It's led to Congress largely giving up its constitutional right to decide who the US will or will not go to war with, by allowing the President to make war without a declaration of same. Really bad move, transferring significant power to the President and the trend seems to be continuing. If Biden is a truly great President he will reverse that.

[Anatoliyanskiy]

well, it depends. I'd prefer if the US used a parliamentary system so that the leader is more accountable and can't just become a dictator. Or at least give more power to the lower house over the Senate and president. But it does need some sort of head of state yes.