by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA Purveyor of Truth
My previous post, "What Obama Needs Is More Power...?", was all about the gushing of Gwyneth Paltrow about how wonderful it would be to give the President the power to get all the things he wants to accomplish accomplished. For the rational thinkers amongst us this is precisely what they don't want.
Our desire to limit the power of the president and the executive branch of government is a sound and admirable pursuit. It's not personal, it has absolutely nothing to do with race or the heritage of a specific individual, nor is it ideologically driven. Rather it is about the desire the accumulation of power in the hands of one individual r branch of government. Checks and balances are every bit as important today as they were when our founders instituted a government based on checks and balances.
One of this sites regular visitors, Dervish Sanders , and resident progressive irritant left the comment below in response to my previous post. His comment while perhaps being as much off the mark as on nevertheless is deserving of further discussion and debate.
It isn't about "power", it's about others in Congress working with instead of against the president. Obama was elected TWICE, after all. But so far a lot of the Change the president promised has been obstructed.
How I would rephrase what she said...
I think it would be wonderful if the voters selected representatives willing to work with the president so that the Change we all (the majority that voted for Obama) wanted could be put into action... as opposed to yet more obstruction.
First, it is about power. One of the flaws of our current two party system is it creates the winner take all mentality that in fact feeds into the desire to concentrate power in the hands one or the other of the major party structures. Given our diverse population, combined with the reality there is a multitude of political thought at play, doesn't it makes sense for Americans to seat multiple parties in congress thus forcing the situation that requires a coalition to form a "ruling" government? It certainly would result in the people "being heard." But I digress.
As for the rephrasing. It is true the president won the popular vote and over 50 percent of the states in both 2008 and 2012. Yet in 2010 the people chose to elect a republican Congress and retain it in 2012. If in fact the people of the nation were desirous of implementing all of the President's policy desires why would they elect in majority to Congress representatives opposed to the Presidents policy initiatives? Is it because they realized the need of a conservative moderating force to balance the more progressive initiatives of the President they elected?
Further, is it really obstruction to vote in the manner the majority of your constituencies would have you vote? Certainly a conundrum when the national political atmosphere is as overheated as it is in America today? Our winner take all mentality of 2008, 2010, 2012,and likely 2016 precludes any possibility of arriving at that reasonable, measured, rational, and workable compromise that will in fact make for a stronger and better America. Hence my argument for a multi party government that would require a coalition to form a ruling government. It would require compromise and it would more accurately represent American interests IMNHO.
Those are my thoughts on Dervish Sanders comment. Feel free to leave yours.