No Heads of State.....

clearlysuspectclearlysuspect Jacksonville, FloridaPosts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
Let me first start by saying this is not a political party debate! This is not about Republican, this is not about Democrat or any other party, this is not about Obama, McCain, Bush, etc. This is a simple debate about the most simplistic forms of government.

While I understand this was not an original thought by any means, it hit me earlier this week as though it were. During the foundations of this nation there was much debate as to whether we should have a President. Many felt it was just another word for "King" and that we would quickly descend into the same form of monarchy from which we rebelled.

So consider this! No President! But don't just stop there. No Governors. No appointed cabinet members. No more national campaigns that divide our nation. Only locally elected officials sent to state and national congresses to represent us.

Why do you feel this form of system would thrive/fail?

I'll start by saying that I feel that the concept of a President is well past it's time of importance. The United States is the most diverse country on the planet and it's silly to think that any one person can represent us. It worked in early America because it wasn't hard to find one person who could represent a nation whose population consisted of vastly white, christian conservatives. If that were the case today, then a President would be a good idea. My personal opinion is that there has been a massive disconnect between our nations, and our states, highest ranking officials for decades and that the only representatives who could ever adequately represent us going forward are officals elected by small pockets of the population across the country who are directly answerable to those small pockets of people. The President today is just a spokesman for over-generalized ideas and nothing more.

Comments

  • stephen_hannibalstephen_hannibal Posts: 4,317
    Can we at least talk about Megan McCain?Wink [;)]

  • clearlysuspectclearlysuspect Jacksonville, FloridaPosts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
    stephen_hannibal:
    Can we at least talk about Megan McCain?Wink [;)]

    Maybe a little.
  • stephen_hannibalstephen_hannibal Posts: 4,317
    Thanks, that woman is beautiful... anywho to answer your question I think the idea is a great one.
    He is nothing but a face to the people.
    I would love to see a pseudo re-colonization of the US. But that's just one mans dream.

  • KriegKrieg Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭
    clearlysuspect:
    Let me first start by saying this is not a political party debate! This is not about Republican, this is not about Democrat or any other party, this is not about Obama, McCain, Bush, etc. This is a simple debate about the most simplistic forms of government.

    While I understand this was not an original thought by any means, it hit me earlier this week as though it were. During the foundations of this nation there was much debate as to whether we should have a President. Many felt it was just another word for "King" and that we would quickly descend into the same form of monarchy from which we rebelled.

    So consider this! No President! But don't just stop there. No Governors. No appointed cabinet members. No more national campaigns that divide our nation. Only locally elected officials sent to state and national congresses to represent us.

    Why do you feel this form of system would thrive/fail?

    I'll start by saying that I feel that the concept of a President is well past it's time of importance. The United States is the most diverse country on the planet and it's silly to think that any one person can represent us. It worked in early America because it wasn't hard to find one person who could represent a nation whose population consisted of vastly white, christian conservatives. If that were the case today, then a President would be a good idea. My personal opinion is that there has been a massive disconnect between our nations, and our states, highest ranking officials for decades and that the only representatives who could ever adequately represent us going forward are officals elected by small pockets of the population across the country who are directly answerable to those small pockets of people. The President today is just a spokesman for over-generalized ideas and nothing more.
    When you start getting rid of entire branches of Government, this being the Executive branch, you start to erode the checks and balances our founding fathers created and have a high possiblity of turning our country into a Democracy (mob rule) or an Oligarchy. They're should always be 3 branches of Goverment, just so that there is a good chance of checks and balances. You can argue that there isn't any of that right now, although that is true since Democrats are in control of the white house and congress, this rarely happens when 1 party gets a super majority and control of the WH. I can understand your attitude towards the "President" (the position), but it provides more often than not, a balance that our Government needs.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,803 ✭✭✭
    I feel the more local systems wuld fail, if only because of states having constant "wars" over territory, governing ability, and stretch of their power to enfore the law. This is why we need the national as well as more and more local systems we have in place. The founding fathers saw this to a degree, but I think alot of what we attribute to their knowledge today, doesnt hold water or is just grasping for ideas---because the nation and climate has advanced beyond what they could have seen or understood. That said, I dont know if there is a better way to do govt. than the one we have, although it to is with great problems...Like many things in any political topic, I think what we have may just be the best of the bad....which is better than most alternatives.
  • fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,024 ✭✭
    Actually this was tried in a sense already. It was called "The Articles of Confederation" It didn't work and a Constitution was created. The Govt we have now is not the same as it was in 1787 however. The President along with the Executive and Judicial branches of the Federal Govt had much less power then than now. The US Congress has changed less except it has become a haven for career pols instead of citizen legislators as it was intended.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Clearlysuspect, if you really wanna look more into this, moreso than on a forum, I really recommend reading some of John Yoo's stuff, like Crisis and Command. Say what you want about the guy and his legal memo's, but his books are amazingly detailed, and he goes into everything from the founding of the country to the most significant Presidents.

    You'll find that not only was the idea of a President extremely controversial, but several States experimented to a huge degree, with everything from some having no Executive branch/everything legislative, to some having only the Executive, and everything in-between. The debate about what the Gov't should look like was HUGE, and all the States had their own ideas that they tried to implement.

    The books not only explore the most transformative/significant Presidents, but it details the circumstances they were facing, the arguments within their administration, the arguments the public was having, how the decision affected the country, and how their ideas and principles changed once they got into office, etc.

    It's really an incredibly insightful read. (FYI - Thomas Jefferson was a borderline tyrant in his second term - he literally shut down every waterway and port using the power of the military against US citizens, not even allowing a fishing boat to go out without his direct/personal presidential approval).

  • cabinetmakercabinetmaker Posts: 2,561
    You can also look back to ancient greece too for some idea how this would work out. I don't think the nation would survive, it would end up much like vulchor stated with a loose consolidation of nation states.
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 4,957 ✭✭✭✭✭
    cabinetmaker:
    You can also look back to ancient greece too for some idea how this would work out. I don't think the nation would survive, it would end up much like vulchor stated with a loose consolidation of nation states.
    Sadly, I think this is probably right. On a similar line of thought, though, I've often wondered what would happen if we decided that if a majority of citizens of voting age don't turn out and vote, we just leave whatever office vacant until the next election? A little chaos of course, but, maybe people would start getting interested in the hows and whys of what's going on. Potentially improving our government in the long run?
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as someone else's bad habits."   Mark Twain
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,803 ✭✭✭
    Interesting idea, I would have to think about that one. The double edged sword here (our nation I mean), is that voting is a right---meaning you have the option to not excerise the right......obviously however, that is the trouble also with our nation being so low in voting compared to other countries. I think the argument could be made, and I am not necessarily making it here---just stating, that the 55% or so that do not vote are so uninformed or disinterested perhaps its for the better. Just think of alot of people we all know and how they vote (meaning lack of knowledge of the issues, just voting based on names, ect), they actually take the time to vote.....imagine the mind of alot of those who do not even do that.
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 4,957 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    Interesting idea, I would have to think about that one. The double edged sword here (our nation I mean), is that voting is a right---meaning you have the option to not excerise the right......obviously however, that is the trouble also with our nation being so low in voting compared to other countries. I think the argument could be made, and I am not necessarily making it here---just stating, that the 55% or so that do not vote are so uninformed or disinterested perhaps its for the better. Just think of alot of people we all know and how they vote (meaning lack of knowledge of the issues, just voting based on names, ect), they actually take the time to vote.....imagine the mind of alot of those who do not even do that.
    It's just too depressing, isn't it?
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as someone else's bad habits."   Mark Twain
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,803 ✭✭✭
    It certainly could be Amos...I just take it from what my college roomates answer was to EVERYTHING....."It is, what it is "........with this the man was content and accepting of all things.
  • KriegKrieg Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭
    fla-gypsy:
    Actually this was tried in a sense already. It was called "The Articles of Confederation" It didn't work and a Constitution was created. The Govt we have now is not the same as it was in 1787 however. The President along with the Executive and Judicial branches of the Federal Govt had much less power then than now. The US Congress has changed less except it has become a haven for career pols instead of citizen legislators as it was intended.
    Senate has also changed, States are no longer represented since the 17th (I think) Amendment was ratified.
Sign In or Register to comment.