Why do we need a PRESIDENT?

[skepticalbip]

Why should one madman make the decision rather than a "committee"?

There are very few independent decisions that the president is empowered to make. The U.S. is run by committee or a committee of committees. We have two congressional committees that write the laws and establish budgets with 435 members in one and 100 members in the other. The president's primary job is to oversee enforcement of the decisions of those two committees. The president can negotiate trade deals and treaties but they are not binding until approved by those committees.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wouldn't Hitler have to take the prize for most charisma? best at manipulating his audience? And isn't one's ability to manipulate the listening audience the most important qualifier to be chosen as "leader" or "President"?

Wouldn't another Hitler be most likely to be elected U.S. President today, if he could correctly identify which symbols or slogans are most popular with the public?

Do we really need a "President"? Why?

Shouldn't our goal today be to reduce the status of the president to that of a figurehead only, or a symbol with little or no special power, other than for some symbolic functions?

The President, usually, is a figurehead. The President doesn't negotiate the treaties, staffing does. Still that is entirely within the Executive Branch. The President doesn't micromanage the military, the Generals/Admirals and down the line do. But there needs to be someone at the top to be the final arbiter. Otherwise, how does a National Government of 50 million, 350 million, 2 billion work fully?

So the question I suppose is are you arguing for axing the Executive Branch and merging it with Congress... and who in Congress has the final say in the execution of laws, treaties, legislation?

[fromderinside]

I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

So, what's wrong with having a committee decide whether to drop a bomb on Moscow rather than leave it to one nutcase charismatic "President" who was better than the other demagogues at manipulating idiots to vote for him?

Well the shooting down of a commercial plane off the east coast of the Soviet Union during Nixon's presidency is the best example at all levels for why individuals given decision power are more apt to be correct than any form of group or centralized control and decision making. They took too long and did the wrong thing because of centralized control, indecisive by group serving several masters, fear of making decisions, and rigid and dated control systems.

First elected presidents aren't usually charismatic characters, entertainment stars maybe, but charismatic, naw. The top attribute of a president is perception by people she can make decisions in the national interest.

Right now we have a throw away president who was selected because the public decided the system was broken that there were no eminent threats to our nation, and that the nation needed some wrenches thrown in to it. Now the rats are coming home to roost and the threats are coming out of the woodwork.

[skepticalbip]

First to the notion of a president. We need national power vested in an individual rather than in a committee or a machine.

I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

The camel is a poor example of design by committee. A real world example of design by committee is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It became unsuitable for the original intent, was years late, and cost several times its budget.

[DBT]

Hard to say. Too many self serving shysters and villains...Ghandi, maybe.

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why should one madman make the decision rather than a "committee"?

There are very few independent decisions that the president is empowered to make. The U.S. is run by committee or a committee of committees.

That's not true. The President individually has way too much power.

But if we assume you're right, then we don't need a President, because all the necessary decisions are made without him.

We have two congressional committees that write the laws and establish budgets with 435 members in one and 100 members in the other. The president's primary job is to oversee enforcement of the decisions of those two committees.

You know that he repeatedly goes against their decisions as he wishes.

But he also issues his executive orders which are purely his own decisions, sometimes contrary to what Congress wants.

Why should one person alone have any power to make policy decisions? Why should he even have veto power? Why not instead have a "committee" exercise that power?

The president can negotiate trade deals and treaties but they are not binding until approved by those committees.

Why should one person alone have that power? Why couldn't a "committee" negotiate the trade deals and treaties (to be submitted for approval)?

And you omitted the "commander-in-chief" role which permits him to in effect start up a war (including whether to launch a nuclear attack). Why shouldn't there be a "committee" to make those decisions instead of putting all that power into the hands of one person?

[fromderinside]

Committees can't flip switches since they have no hands.

[skepticalbip]

That's not true. The President individually has way too much power.

But if we assume you're right, then we don't need a President, because all the necessary decisions are made without him.

We have two congressional committees that write the laws and establish budgets with 435 members in one and 100 members in the other. The president's primary job is to oversee enforcement of the decisions of those two committees.

You know that he repeatedly goes against their decisions as he wishes.

But he also issues his executive orders which are purely his own decisions, sometimes contrary to what Congress wants.

Why should one person alone have any power to make policy decisions? Why should he even have veto power? Why not instead have a "committee" exercise that power?

The president can negotiate trade deals and treaties but they are not binding until approved by those committees.

Why should one person alone have that power? Why couldn't a "committee" negotiate the trade deals and treaties (to be submitted for approval)?

And you omitted the "commander-in-chief" role which permits him to in effect start up a war (including whether to launch a nuclear attack). Why shouldn't there be a "committee" to make those decisions instead of putting all that power into the hands of one person?

There is too fucking much ignorance in that of how our government is set up and operates. I have to assume that you have never taken a civics class. It is a shame that the public school system has become so piss poor that the majority of current HS graduates can not pass the citizenship test required of emigrants to become citizens.

A sad note when a new citizen that was a refugee from some war torn country in Africa knows more about how the U.S. government works than native born citizens.

[Keith&Co.]

I forget which president, at the end of his term, remarked that there are no easy decisions as president.
The previous pres. told him that on tge way to the inauguration. "Any easy decision will be made much lower down the ladder. Any hard decision gets bucked up a rung. The hardest go highest. And you have no one to buck them up to."

"At first i did not believe him. But, then it proved to be true."


I thought about that a lot as a leading petty officer. I was never the final authority, so i always had the 'buck' option. But a lot of the decisions i did make were bucked up to mebecause they weren't easy for others.

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^
Yes. The really, really tough decisions are those needed to resolve some really dire and threatening situation within the constraints of current laws or regulations when it would be easily resolved by ignoring approved procedures or the law. Lower echelons can decide how to resolve problems by following procedures. Going beyond normal approved procedures requires higher authority.