In the page entitled The Role of the President, I outlined the main responsibilities of the President that are specifically charged to him by the Constitution. His duties are significant but limited; he is Commander-in-Chief, he can veto legislation, he nominates officers to serve in various positions of responsibility and departments of government, and he negotiates treaties and leads foreign policy. The President's main unofficial responsibility however is to provide leadership, to the nation as a whole, and to the various organs of the government.
It is the President who speaks to the entire country at one time, and in the case of the annual State of the Union address, he is ordered to do so by the Constitution. The President, through his representatives in the executive branch, offers up to congress each year a budget. It is the job of congress to work out the deatils, and the President can accept or reject their final package. The President also will bring to the attention of the federal courts cases that involve constitutional questions for the country to decide. In these two examples, and in many other ways, our President interacts constantly with the other branches of government, but he is not a dictator. When you look at the entire scope of the Presidency, you will notice that in more cases than not, the President is the one who initiates action, then works with congress and the courts to develop policies and legislation. Therefore, of all the responsibilities that go with the job, the President must provide leadership, even in cases where the final decision may not be his!
Obviously, leadership is crucial to our nation's well being. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in the Role of the President discussion, our political structure has devolved into a partisan battle for power. When the President has decisions to make, he is now confronted with the wishes of his party and the effects of any decision on the party's political future. This dual responsibility of being the leader of the nation and the leader of his political party has caused severe problems for the country as a whole. Good choices are passed over and/or poor choices are made with regards to policies and legislation due to this state of affairs in Washington.
In order to correct this situation, we need to find a way to separate the two competing loyalties that pull at the President. The best way to eliminate this competition is to remove the job of party leadership from the President! That can only happen if the President is an independent, not a member of either party and with no loyalties to either one of them. Under those circumstances, the President can act soley for the interests of the nation and the people, and have no worries about whether or not his party will win the next election. In essence, the President will be free of partisanship and able to provide unfettered leadership!
When you look at the policy making and legislating that originates in Washington these days, it isn't hard to see the partisan divide in action. The Democrats and Republicans hurl various charges back and forth accusing each other of unfair tactics, outright corruption and lying, stubbornness and unwillingness to co-operate, etc. These debates are not solving the problems, they are actually arguments over which side is going to get its way in finalizing a particular piece of legislation. When the President is a member of one of the two major parties, he is virtually forced to support his own side by the political needs of the party. Also, because the "debate" is polarized into partisan positions, it is often the case that the item under dsicussion is a one-sided approach that leaves little room for compromise and successful implementation. The end result of this partisanship is unmet needs and unresolved problems that cause even greater frustration within the Washington bureaucracy and among the people as well. Once this attitude sets in, emotions run high, words are spoken that are later regretted, and the challenges facing the country get dealt with not at all or in an unsatisfactory halfway manner.
When the President is independent of party affiliation, he can provide the leadership that can get past the partisanship. He should offer to the congress some basic ideas and points for starting a discussion to enact legislation. He should promote a willingness to consider all points of view, and he should direct our legislators to propose to the people a choice of options from which they could select that which serves the best interests of our collective will. In our current method of developing legislation, the members of congress fight and argue and eventually come up with a bill that is rarely satisfactory to anyone. The idea is that this bill must be the final choice before them. This however, is not the best way to proceed.
Let's use a particularly contentious item as our example of how to make the process work, Social Security. The current fight over this program that is in desperate need of overhaul is highlighted by partisanship actions. Both parties feel that if they do anything that will upset a particular segment of our population, they will lose support, lose the election, and lose power. The Democrats position is tied to an unshakable belief that it should always be 100% government controlled, while Republicans want to add investment options outside of the government structure. Raising the contribution limit, adjusting the cost of living increases or the age of participation level, even making some partial benefit adjustment based on need are all aspects of the discussion and are highly controversial. That our legislators are reluctant to tackle the issue shows how strong the partisanship is. Were there no concern over who wins the next election, the future of SS would be resolved by now.
Imagine what would happen however, if the congress (both houses separately) set up different committees to do a thorough investigation of each individual aspect listed above, and any other considerations. The committees would be bi-partisan, with equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Each committee would work solely on the particular piece they were given, evaluating every possible repercussion that would come from either implementing or not implementing that particular piece. Once the work is completed, the various options of each particular idea are brought before the entire house or senate. In a complete and thorough debate, the two houses come up with a choice of two or three likely plans to reform the system. Now comes the best part.
Instead of a vote by the members of each house, suppose our elected officials now returned home to discuss the proposals with their constituents. The various ideas are publicly discussed in newspapers, on TV, over the internet, and in the end, each representative and senator returns to Washington and truly votes for a package that the majority in their district prefer without regard to any party's official stance! There need not be any partisan fighting going on because the initial proposals were done by truly bi-partisan committees. The options were openly discussed with the citizens, and the votes cast according to those wishes. In such cases, politicians would not fear losing the next election. In fact, the representative that actually did what most of the constituents in their district truly wanted done would be acquiring the best insurance for getting re-elected.
The President being an independent with no stake in the political outcome, would be the moderator of the discussion. In the case of individual members of congress being obstructionist, he would be able to openly identify the person or persons causing the resistance, and allow the people to get involved by contacting the recalcitrant persons and demanding that they co-operate to pass what the people want. Politicians, when facing the wrath of the voters, will quickly respond to the will of the people or be voted out next election. When the President has party members to defend, he becomes part of the problem rather than the leader of the solution. He continues in the partisan mode because he owes loyalty to the group. When he is an independent, he can lead the people and the congress to address and solve the challenges facing the country. He is not the dictator, he is the facilitator. The decision is made by "we the people" through their representatives, which is what the founders intended, but without the partisanship that has come to characterize our current political climate.
The immense benefit of an independent President cannot be ignored. In the heat of today's campaign for the 2008 election, we constantly hear from the Presidential candidates what they are going to do, what their position is on various subjects. When they make these pronouncements, they have to be careful not to say too much that might cause them the loss of a particular voting segment of our population. This is why, when we listen to these folks give speeches and in the debates, we get the uneasy feeling that we aren't being told everything, that we aren't getting a straight answer. Well, that feeling is correct because that is exactly what the candidates intend to do. They hedge and vacillate because they want votes to get into power, and they have no principles they are willing to stand by that would prevent that from happening.
Earlier when we discussed the role of a President, I mentioned that in most cases, he doesn't have the final say. Laws in this country are made by the congress, and when the President is not a member of either party, the congress can get about the businees of writing law without the distraction of the President as a political ally or adversary. They will not have to worry about looking as though they are supporting the other team's man, or ignoring solutions because they want to back up their own President. The congress can freely operate without that distraction and the President can lead without worrying about the fate of his party. Most importantly, the citizens of the nation, that's you and I, "we the people", will regain control over their hired help. The President will be loyal to you first, willing to take on the congress inorder to provide solutions to the challenges facing the nation.
Back in the pages of his website where I talked about why I am a candidate and the goals and philosophy of how I would govern, I said that you would be the final piece of the puzzle in restoring common sense and accountability to our politics. I said that you must play a vital part if our nation would continue to be governed by the principles of the Constitution, rule of law, and will of the people. I have now laid out for you how I will go about providing leadership in Washington. I do not intend to demand legislation that satisfies me, but I will demand that our representatives and senators produce solutions that are satisfactory to you, and I have shown you how I will proceed to make it happen. The challenges facing our nation are significant and we need to have our politicans focused on solutions, not on self serving power struggles. You have the responsibility to see to it that our government works, and my job will be to allow you to exercise the authority you already possess to control the future of this great nation. The next step is yours, as the old saying goes, the ball is in your court. We can govern ourselves or we can be ruled by a group of elites who are fast becoming an aristocracy. This is the election, now is the time for choosing and acting, for summoning up the faith and guts to take charge of the future.
|
|
