.....I don't understand the American government at this point in the history of our country. Nothing gets done because of an outdated political system fomenting a chasm between two parties with two different agendas. We have a president who is of the Democratic Party and a Congress with a Senate and a House who bicker and spar with each other like Ali and Forman at the "Rumble in the Jungle". That's what our Congress is--a jungle with politicians swinging like apes in the trees going nowhere. This is the year 2012, 236 years removed from the "founding fathers" who were old men with white wigs, and who wrote a constitution establishing a government which ostensibly was good for that time...but apparently not for this time because it isn't working. If it were not so egregious, it would be laughable. It is time for a new kind of government that will work for the people of the 21st Century. It is apparently time to forget the founding grandfathers and to find some new founders.
.....We are still ten months away from the next presidential election, and the two parties are bickering and inflaming the electorate about each other with derogatory and insulting commercials on television, print media, Facebook, Twitter, iPhones, and what-not--technology that did not exist in 1776. The Republican Party's would-be nominees for the Presidency are even defaming each other. There will be ten wasted months of no legislation that will move this country forward. So, lf the American people elect a President on the basis of their trust in him to do what he says he is going to do, then give him the power to do it in his first four years in office. Let him have the power to order Congress to pass the legislation he has promised, without his having to depend upon them to approve of it. Let these members of Congress continue to represent their constituents by advising the president of their own ideas for moving the country forward. The American people have had their say at the polls. Let their president have the necessary power to do their bidding. That's a step forward for a new kind of Democracy for our times. Call me crazy, but that's my vision for a government that will not make me feel like calling 911.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i agree that today's government is not working. and the reason is simple, those in power spend all their time doing nothing more than trying to hold onto the power they have, instead of doing the peoples business. we need to go back to how the founding fathers envisioned government, that is citizen legislators, who go to Washington DC for 4 or 6 years and then go back home. but we will never see that because they would rather do nothing and get paid for it.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, Baron. Actually, the system you propose is more or less the one we have here. And we don't even have a written constitution! Your constitution is based on the writings of a Frenchman who inaccurately observed and recorded our system. Those who framed your Constitution decided that the separation of powers was the be-all and end-all of a good system, and separated the powers so far that they cannot survive the barrage of lobbying and bad faith that, as you correctly remark, are ruining governance in your Union. I told you all that a year or so back!!! Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteThe Baron has many great ideas and thoughts...however, this is not one of them. Creative? Yes. But not a good idea. We would essentially be electing an emperor for four years. The result would be chaos. A people used to over 250 years of rule of law, a consitution and the process of a republic (no mater how flawed), would not stand for law by fiat.
ReplyDeleteMy chimerical vision of a new government, like "Gulliver's Travels", was never meant to be taken seriously. The American people would never accept the idea of putting such power in one man for four years, so no one should be concerned about that. My twisted mind imagined a concept of a government that would not be politically deadlocked over legislation. You need not be concerned that this would ever become reality.
DeleteBob - with the utmost respect, you are just plain wrong. A dictator is someone who CAN'T be voted out after 4 years. A political party is voted in on the basis of an electoral programme and if, when it is voted in, the constitution won't allow it to get on with implementing that programme, then the constitution is defective and needs redrafting. I repeat: what the Baron is proposing is broadly what we have in the UK. And no-one can accuse us of being a dictatorship or having an emperor! What we DO have, however, is a National Health Service: and you don't. I rest my case. Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteLord Acton was correct. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The American Constitution is designed to prevent a tyrant from taking power.
ReplyDeletePlenty of new laws pass every year. Some (most? all?) of the laws that do not pass should not pass. For example, I believe it fair to say that Foxy Bob is not a rich man and would not be affected by "soak the rich" schemes.
From what I know of him, the Foxy One would prefer that jobs are created, preferably by lowering taxes. That is my position also.
Thomas Jefferson's position that the best government is the one that governs least is still a good principle.
I want to be governed as little as possible. How about you?
The United States has the worst government in the world EXCEPT for that of all the other countries.
Phil - we ALL want to be governed as little as possible: we vary only in our opinion of how little will do the job of governing us and our fellow-citizens. It's a mistake to think that the UK is a hotbed of over-government: you have anti-trust legislation, and laws against hostile takeovers, and bankruptcy laws that protect employees, all of which are unknown within these shores. And I think that you have misquoted Winston Churchill who said that democracy was the worst of all systems, except for all the others. Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteI certainly did not misquote Winnie. I quoted ME.
ReplyDeletePlease note that I never said that the UK was a hotbed or even a coldbed of over-government. It's not intellectually honest to create a straw man so that you can attack him/her unfairly.
In fact I was implying that the U.S. has too many laws; I would not want anti-trust legislation repealed but hostile takeovers are generally good for the stockholders. The present bankruptcy laws were recently revised and could stand more revision.
One final word. A British acquaintance who was a magistrate in Zambia when G.B. was still in control of that land said, "The Wogs begin at Calais."
A WOG is short for Western Oriental Gentleman, a derisive term for colonials who dress in Western style, and try to follow the manners and mores of their "masters."
As obnoxiously smug as some Brits are (and some Yanks as well), we must recognize the truth of this statement--"Never go a bear on England." The conquest of the Malvinas and its return to its former title, Falkland Islands, is one of the great feats of military history.
Aha! I see that my controversial blog has elicited a political dialogue. I knew that would happen.
ReplyDeleteBaron sees all, knows all, tells whatever he pleases. Oohrah for the Majestic One!
ReplyDeleteHi again Phil - the charge was not levelled at you, dear man, and I do apologise if that was the appearance of what I wrote. However a lot of Americans actually DO think that we are over-governed because we do not have a written constitution! The allegation is that we have "an elected dictatorship." The American Constitution, I stress, worked WELL until your polity was overwhelmed by the lobbying industry and a lot of bad faith. It is these latter phenomena that have rightly aroused the Baron's exasperation: and that exasperation has led him to the half-joking half-serious suggestions that he made. All I am saying is that the UK does NOT have a constitution which can be argued over forever: and that we are none the worse for it!
ReplyDeleteI was most interested to read your views on some of the US legislation I mentioned. That's the sort of comment which somehow never gets into our newspapers and periodicals. Well - it wouldn't, would it, until such legislation is proposed over here. If and when it IS so proposed, I will be the first to tell you, and you will be thus enabled to write to the British press with your thoughts, before any of your countrymen and women. How's that for an offer? Cuzzin Ruth