Never In Mixed Company
July 17th, 2009 at 1:23 pm (General, Rants)
You may have heard the expression “Never discuss politics or religion in mixed company.” I intend to break that rule, but only in the realm of politics. Apparently I’ve given people the impression that I am a Republican. I am not. Nor am I a Democrat. I’m a swing voter, depending on the issues, the stance of the party and the comments of the candidate. The problem is that the American populous is making it harder and harder to make a good decision about who to vote for. This begs the question, “how does the populous make voting more difficult?” The simple answer is by being uninformed about the general function of government.
If anyone has followed a presidential election since the 1980’s you’ve probably noticed some hot button issues. Abortion, gun control, immigration, welfare reform, etc. are all perennial giants in the political scene. The reason that we hear about these every four years is because the public wants to hear about them. The problem is that the president of the United States has little say in these topics. I’ll use abortion as the example. In the United States abortion is legal under certain constraints, some of these constraints are set by the federal government, some by the state.
Irrespective of any personal opinion on the matter, the Supreme Court made a ruling on the constitutionality of abortion. Under the 9th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution the Supreme Court decided that a woman ultimately has the right to decide what happens with her own body. This is based off a right to privacy which has a long (emphasis on long) history in the law. This is contrasted against the rights of the fetus or unborn child. Because we are a nation which has it’s roots in past precedence and there is much less in the way of past precedence for legal issues involving beings as yet unborn, the rights of the mother won out.
For those against abortion I should say that it is unlikely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned in its current state. Doing so means going directly against 2 Constitutional amendments. Most likely the balance will have to be struck between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child, but even this is problematic. What is even more problematic is a president saying he is going to do anything about this issue at all. Why? For starters he doesn’t introduce legislation, he doesn’t debate legislation and nominally does not amend legislation (save for the line item veto.) That is the job of the legislature. The president can surely choose to pass or veto something once it has been approved by the House and Senate. Even then, the law is subject to Judicial Review.
This is the whole point of our system. Every branch of government is subject to every other branch so that no one can take truly unilateral action unless all branches agree. This is a fact that is totally ignored during most presidential campaigns. As a result, all we really hear is some vague idea of how the president plans to lead the party, not the country. A problem that also makes it very difficult to determine a real political agenda when both sides spend all their time pandering for additional support with empty words and razzle-dazzle.
Tara Clark said,
July 17, 2009 at 1:53 pm
But as a leader, the president represents the ideals of the people, theoretically, of course. In addition, he chooses specific people to be in charge. Most important in the issue of abortion is the Supreme Court Justices. We’re seeing that very issue this week.
I put very little stock in how much the president can do. For instance, when Obama promised to pull out of the war, I rolled my eyes. I believe he has very little to do with it. In addition, I believe Bush was a front man and had very little to do with the beginning of it. I’m cynical and largely undereducated, but I think the president is more of a figure head, much like the British Queen.
alexpoiry said,
July 17, 2009 at 2:22 pm
This is another good point. Even in democratic nations where the people nominally choose their leader it is truly rare to find the one potential candidate is vastly overshadowed in votes by another, especially in a two party system. I’ll have to check, but in the history of the U.S. I’m not sure there has ever been a president who has taken 60% of the popular vote or more.
So… are we always being fair when we characterize a nation by its leader. If not what does that say about the Russians with Putin, the North Koreans with Kim Jong-il, the Iranians with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or even the Germans with Hitler.
Tom said,
July 17, 2009 at 6:52 pm
A sound argument indeed… The presidency represents the ideals of the greatest nation on the planet. As such, he is in a leadership role. Incidentally, that is the role of all executives. They must always exhibit the high ideals and principals upon which the country was founded. Their strength of character should compel others to follow them, not through force or coercion, but by instilling a sense of loyalty and patriotism. These are lofty goals which may not often be met, but those for which the president should strive. Unfortunately, uninformed populaces with little or no principals to form their thoughts or direction fail to recognize or embrace these values. Subsequently, any political hack, regardless of party, can run and be elected.
alexpoiry said,
July 18, 2009 at 7:27 am
I’m not entirely sure what to say about this. It is interesting to get your interpretation from what I’ve written, but honestly this is not the direction I was headed. Reading your statement verbatim and assigning dictionary definitions to all the words I think I agree. (With a knowledge of the last decade or so, some of these terms have a broader political implication based on how they have been used, in that context I am reticent to agree.) I believe the president should lead by adhering to a nations principles, unless those principles are in questions. But that is not ultimately the point that I’m making. Watch the next couple of posts I’ll be interested to see what you think of them.
Travis Chase said,
July 18, 2009 at 10:59 am
I am in agreement with Alex on this. I think the president gets more credit and criticism than he/she, maybe in the future, deserves. I view the president more like the CEO of a large company. He/she has some power but mostly is used as the figure-head, marketing personality of the company. They get more credit in good times and get more crap in bad than they were probably personally responsible for. It really comes down to the board of directors to try an enact significant policy for the company with the vote of the shareholders. This is analogy does not completely hold up, as there are some significant differences, but the point being the figurehead does not create policy but merely influences the marketing message.
My biggest problem is when the when all the major branches have the same or related political stances. This seems to be dangerous when it comes to the checks and balances. I am not stating that this the situation we find ourselves in, but it does strike me that we are very close. I love it when the judicial branch is split, the president is from one party and congress is controlled by the opposing party.
alexpoiry said,
August 10, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Not that anyone is still following this thread, but…
The president does have some very specific and significant powers. For some reason we never seem to focus on those. More over why is it the considered a good thing for the president to be immobile but we seem to value “voting on the other side of the isle” in a legislator. I’m not really sure what we want in a judiciary, people who think as ‘we’ do I suppose.
I should probably point out that it is unlikely that we will ever have one party only. Even if the Democrats were to gain an absolute majority allowing them to pass legislation over a presidential veto it would not be long before the situation re-balanced itself. There are lots of reasons for this which I will convey if anyone shows even the slightest interest.
I think the real reason that the Democrats are doing so well is that the Republicans don’t seem to be grabbing for swing voters. It appears that they spend all their time trying to convince the white middle-class Christian, sub-urban to rural types to vote for them. This is a little like trying to convince people who showed up to a sermon to come to church. They are there already, if you want more you have to go outside. I imagine that starting in 2010 you’ll start to see the Republicans appear a little more moderate on most topics in an attempt to grab more from the middle. With any luck that will mean less talk of abortion, gun-rights, immigration, etc., and more talk of economic security in an eastward shifting world, improving education, etc.
This is thing I’ve never understood, it’s not as if the Republican base is going to exodus to the Democratic party if the Republican Party doesn’t tow the line on the traditional issues. The worst thing is that they won’t vote. All the Republicans need to do is pay lip service to the issues that concern their base and then focus on the issues that concern the middle. I should probably be charging for this stuff. Hey, Republican Party. Want more good ideas? Give me a call. My number is probably in a domestic surveillance database somewhere. (Okay, that was highly partisan, I couldn’t help it, sorry.)