In reference to the article I posted below (see "No Vice"), I can't help but agree with the author's premise. However, I would take that one step further and ask, "Do we need a president?"
I'm reading Al Gore's new book, "The Assault on Reason", and in that, he explains how President Bush's tenure has been marked by one big power grab after another. In effect, this administration has far overstepped the bounds of the Executive Branch as outlined in the Constitution, to the point where the three branches of government, which are supposed to serve adequately as checks on one another in what is supposed to be a free democracy, are rendered obsolete. By appointing wealthy friends in high places and then allowing them to turn the wheels of power in an effort to set national policies and squelch the rights of the individual, the Constitution as we know it has been reduced to a piece of paper that may have been taken out with the recycling a few years ago.
This president, not the Congress, took us to war with a country that did not attack us. This president has not only single-handedly destroyed this nation as we know it, but has made a mess of the world around us and squandered the good will many nations felt towards us. This was the work of one man - one president. It was also the work of Dick Cheney, but Cheney is the president, too. Neither is a vice president, but they both have many vices.
Think, if there were no president, no vice president, or Executive Branch, we would have had no war against Iraq. We would not have lost the good will of other nations. We would have military generals in the field continuing to focus their efforts and energies on Afghanistan, not Iraq. We may have even avoided 9/11. Had the CIA and FBI, and information from other intelligence sources not been dismissed by the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Rice, these sources and agencies just may have had the flexibility and freedom to share information with one another, without fear of political repercussions, losing their job, or having their patriotism challenged.
If there were no president, a five trillion dollar budget surplus may not have been turned into an over four trillion dollar deficit due to some of the most ridiculous tax breaks ever put forth by an administration and the trillions wasted on this sad war.
If there were no president, education in this country may have a fighting chance. Because we have a president, we are instead burdened with the seriously flawed "No Child Left Behind" act.
If there were no president, real threats from Iran and North Korea may not have been ignored. Because the real dangers were overlooked, these states have been allowed to pursue the very weapons of mass destruction this president carried on about for so long with respect to Iraq.
Can the United States function without an Executive Branch? Yes. That does not mean that it can function without some sort of chief administrator. The problem with the Executive is that it has become less an administrative branch and more of a legislative one. Alas, this may have served to confuse Dick Cheney with regard to what his role is and under what auspices his position falls. This administration makes policy, whether Congress authorizes it to do so or not. This administration determines what is legal and illegal, irrespective of the Supreme Court. This administration has even gone so far as to tell Congress that it will sign certain bills, but that it reserves the right not to follow the new law.
All this has set a bad precedent for the next president, Democratic or otherwise. With presidential politics the way it is, it is hard to fathom too many candidates, even those on the Left, who will not become giddily obsessed with their newfound raw power. Indeed, to undo much of the damage this president has done, it will take lots of unchecked presidential power, with the pendulum swinging wildly in the opposite direction to accomplish this feat. While in essence we would be erasing many years of pain and destruction, it would only serve to weaken our Constitution and our democracy that much further. Then, should we be unfortunate enough to end up with another Far Right wing-nut in the Oval Office in the future, what then should stop them from kicking it up yet another notch? Would it be long before the Congress is dissolved by the president? What's to prevent the president from doing that now? The Constitution certainly is no obstacle. Before you know it, the American autocracy would take hold and then all is truly lost.
Bush, Cheney, and the Far Right have wrecked this nation. However, the corrupting power and influence of presidential politics and the media have been in cahoots to rob our democracy of its true character. Yes, we need a leader, but not a president.
Though I would not recommend the same type of parliamentary system such as that found in the United Kingdom, something akin to that might be ideal.
In order to preserve the best aspects of what our democracy was meant to be, we may actually be forced to rob it of certain democratic systems that we have enjoyed. Ironically, in order to achieve greater accountability from our leaders, we may have to give up our right to vote for president.
How can I suggest such a thing when it clearly flies in the face of any efforts to preserve the foundations upon which our republic was formed? To answer this question, we must more closely analyze our presidential elections. Exactly how much control do we get in electing our president? Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's veritable appointment of George Bush to the presidency, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the individual voter truly has no say in who becomes president at all.
Election cycles are beginning much earlier. Before the voting machines are put away, the concession speeches are given, and the inaugural balls are held, candidates gear up for the next election. Of course, they do not admit that they are candidates at such an early juncture, but candidates they are nonetheless. As soon as the first fundraising dollar is earned, exploratory committees formed, and papers filed, consider them a candidate. There is no reason for journalists to pussy-foot the issue and press politicians on the issue when they have the evidence they need. It makes no sense for journalists to ask, "Are you or are you not a candidate?" or "When will you announce...can you announce right here on our program?" if it is already public information that the political figure has filed federal election papers or has started an exploratory committee. Likewise, said figures should not be coy about matters. If you're running, you are running. End of story.
These candidates, to even have a chance, have to raise at least tens of millions of dollars before the first primary ballot is even cast. The media jump in and then try to influence the vote with their talking heads "experts", their colorful electoral charts and polls, and special news or biographical features on the candidates. When it comes time for the caucuses and primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire get the lionshare of attention and failure in one or both of those states is tantamount to political death.
Sure some Iowans and residents of New Hampshire get to vote or voice their opinions, but they have undue influence. If California, the most populous state, really likes Hillary, but New Hampshire is sweet on Barack OBama, then New Hampshire is going to have a lot more influence in possibly making Obama the next nominee than California will, even though California has many more voters. If winning New Hampshire has effectively secured the nomination for someone like Obama, then California (and many other states) will have no incentive to vote if a winner is already decided.
Momentum is the key. If you can generate the momentum needed in the early primary states, you can effectively run away with the nod. Of course, the media like to play kingmaker and spoiler. One need look no further than the 2004 primary race, where we saw the media, in one fell swoop, cause Howard Dean's campaign to implode and catapult Establishment candidate John Kerry back into serious contention - overplaying the so-called "Dean Scream" helped Kerry restore the Establishment's claim to the nomination, which would have otherwise been unduly robbed by the Vermont upstart. For people like me, who genuinely rallied behind Dean, we were and still are quite outraged by this act of political sabotage. Of course, we all came to support Kerry, but what choice did we have then?
Not only are our choices influenced by the enormous amounts of money raised, front-loaded and overmagnified early primary contests, and media bias, but also we have no choice in who runs and who does not. If only we could have had a say in whether George W. Bush should have been allowed to run in 2000. What about those of us who would like to see Al Gore run this time around? If he does not run, then we are forced to make a tough decision among candidates we may view as being less than ideal. Why can't there be an election where we the people decide who gets to run and who doesn't? Of course, logistically and democratically, we cannot in good conscience dictate who gets to run and who does not. However, this just underscores just how little say we have in the entire process.
Once the dust from the primaries has settled, there emerge two major candidates, the nominees of their respective parties. This is the choice we are left with. That's it. We get to choose one of those two people, unless we want to vote for a third-party candidate. If we dislike both major candidates, we have to vote for the lesser of two evils or vote for someone we know can't win, for the principle of it.
After enduring months on end of political campaigning and gamesmanship, media hype and sensationalism, watching hundreds of millions of dollars be spent by candidates and special interest gruops on vilifying attack ads, and being provided with less and less choice or actual say in the whole process, we go to the polls and choose the one person we feel will do the least amount of harm to our country.
Or at least we think we choose.
Funny that there is still this thing called the Electoral College that gets in the way of direct election of the president. We do not actually vote for the president. We are in fact, voting for an Elector, whom we assume will in good faith cast their ballot in favor of the candidate we have instructed them to vote for when it comes time for the Electoral College to meet. The politics surrounding who gets to be an Elector is a whole different story. Unfortunately, an Elector is not bound by our instructions. Any Elector can decide to cast his or her ballot for anyone else. If that occurs, that can sway an election, if it is that close. Suppose a candidate wins an election by a margin of 270-268. It only takes one faithless Elector to sway the outcome. If the candidate with 270 votes gains one less Electoral Vote because that one Elector decided to give it to the other guy or to someone entirely different, then nobody has a majority. This would then throw the election into the House and the new House of Representatives would choose the next president. If the Democrat won the election in November, and that Elector's actions robbed him or her of that victory, a newly elected Republican House could effectively render the people's decision meaningless and give the presidency to the losing candidate. Don't believe it? It's been done before...only that time it was the Supreme Court that perpetrated that crime against democracy. The Electoral margin in 2000 was indeed very close, and had neither candidate, when all was said and done, not attained the 270 Electoral Votes needed for a majority, the Republican House, rest assured, would have installed Bush as the next president nonetheless. Again, we did not have a say after the Supreme Court ruled and we would have been equally voiceless had the Congress made the decision for us.
To return to my earlier point then, our say in the whole process of electing the president is a farce no matter how you slice it. Even if you were to abolish the Electoral College, there would be much more widespread election fraud and abuse, and any challenges could potentially trigger nationwide recounts and court battles for months on end - think Florida in 2000 only multiplied by 50 states and many more months.
Direct election of the president could also actually result in the election of a minority president. If the Republican candidate defeats the Democratic candidate by a percentage of 48-46% and a progressive third-party candidate receives 6% of the vote, then in effect, a majority of voters would have voted against the Republican candidate by a 52-48 percent margin. Though most people did not vote for the Republican, that's who we would get. Also, if there were a direct election of the president, you could end up with a regional president. Suppose one candidate hails from the South. If his or her party mobilizes enough of their base in the South and gets a very good turnout in the polls down there, then very little time or effort would need to be spent in the rest of the country. A few million votes concentrated in the South could be all that candidate needs to secure victory. Similarly, this would encourage all candidates to go to the most populous areas and spend most of their time and resources there. New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, and Detroit would command the lionshare of focus since that is where a lot of the votes are. Why would anyone bother with any rural states or suburban areas of the country where the vote concentration is not as great? The one good thing about the Electoral College is that it gives small states a say in the process and ignoring small states or less populous regions could cost you the presidency. In a direct election, you could write off a two-thirds of the voters and still have a great shot at winning - by a lot!
Is there a way to fix this? There is...stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment