Caravan Ray wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:39 am
So why do you need him? What job does he do? Why does your Constitution give power to one person - when that person could be an idiot? Giving power to one person is a very 18th century idea. It is a bit out of date don’t you think?
You're asking me to provide socio-philosophical commentary that I'm unqualified for and that will probably sound like cynical post-rationalization. I'll do my best!
1) It is important to have a single point of failure that is electable. Hiding behind committees, etc, is a good way to have an unaccountable government. Look at the complaints about the EU.
2) Having multiple executives would mean that in unexpected circumstances, there could be a question as to who is the ultimate authority, and that is a huge problem.
3) This single executive needs full authority, otherwise there's a chance of one of the executive functions performing a coup. The executive cannot break the system because everyone swears to uphold the rules and not a particular authority. In the UK, the last resort of authority is the queen, which is a joke. If the UK ever had a military coup, the queen couldn't do anything.
4) It allows presidents to break from their parties and take bold stances, and historically this has been a good thing. That party only covers half of America's diversity, and the president has to rule the entire country and usually likes being seen as a good person. Traditionally, the president is the moderating leader that reshapes the party for the better.
5) It makes citizens invested in 'the system' because they know they will win in the future.
6) It makes citizens invested in (occasionally) moderating the system because they know they'll lose in the future.
7) For better or worse, the individualistic aesthetic meshes better with our culture. There's a reason we like the sports we like. There's a reason I find Irish tours and museums unnecessarily boring. You'd think they could at least try to make this Guinness fellow a legend, give him some personality.
8) The whole world can direct their rage at one American and we can swap that person out next year and you'll love us again. George W Bush? What a dope! Obama? 500 Nobel Peace Prizes! miss u xoxoxo! The American system enables us to be bipolar, to our benefit, with little consequence.
9) Fighting so much over who gets to hold the loaded gun is better than another Civil War.
To be clear, none of this excuses our current president's behavior. The president is traditionally a uniter. However, a majority of the concern about this president is not with his actual executive power, but with his use of the
bully pulpit - his ability to have his statements amplified due to his office. Sure, he likes talking about what he might do with his "power", but that's because he likes hearing clips of himself on cable news. Everything he says is the output of predictable algorithmic narcissism: make bold outrageous claim, milk it for a few days, revise it for better or worse, rinse & repeat. We could turn off cable news and pretend he's a standard Republican president.
Now, I assume you probably think it's outdated to have a government designed to withstand catastrophic scenarios and the ebbs and flows of history. Yet, you bet America wouldn't make it through the next election. Which is it, sir?
Yes, technology changes some things, but people are always the same with the same motivations and same fears. Societal structures are downstream of those motivations, and so they always have the same issues. Bold claim, I know, but I don't think humans are any better at being human than they were 200 or even 10,000 years ago.