A weak President makes for a better Democracy

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
So from reading the title, I'm sure you're thinking "What? How could someone possibly think that?". Let me explain.

A strong President never changes his stance. He fights for what he believes in, even if what he believes in is totally delusional. I believe we all have the name of a certain President in our heads at this moment.

A weak President relies not on his own decissions, but on the polls. His purpose is to please the people. He may vote for one thing one month and something completely opposite the next.

So, assuming the Presidential office isn't just a scam controlled by some higher force (which I have half a mind to believe), let's think about this. An example of a strong President would be Bush or McCain. They will fight the war in Iraq no matter WHAT the American people have to say about it. In their own minds, they do what they think is right and no one is going to stop them.
Now, I may get some boo's for this, but I believe an example of a weak President would be Barack Obama. I believe that Barack Obama DOES care about what people think, as he cares about his approval rating. Whether he has good intentions or not does not matter to me, as he would actually listen to what the American people have to say.


Let's look at the last 8 years with Bush. The reason people hate him so much is because he acts as though Americans do not exist. He's strong in his belief. Too strong. The Iraq War and 'no child left behind' are two examples of the opposing opinion of Bush and the American people.

Now, whether Democrat or Republican, I think we can all agree that what matters is that the people are heard. We are no where near a Democracy, but if the President would actually listen to what the people have to say, we would be a Hell of a lot closer.

This is why I believe Barack Obama would make a better President. I'm not attacking his character, I simply believe that he would sway with the polls on every issue of what the American people thought.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by TruthParadox]




posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
As long as he doesn't cry and hide under the bed during a difficult time, I'm all for a weakling for POTUS.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
A good post.. and one that I think, for the most part, makes a great deal of sense.

Bipartisanship is something that seems to be missing a bit from the US system these days, as both parties are clawing at each other to look different and look to be in complete control.

I think both Obama and McCain are on the same standing in what we're talking about - neither of them are as hardheaded as Bush.

Of course McCain has his temper, but he's expressed wanting to work with both parties.

But on big, war-like issues, bipartisanship will always be a pipe dream. If everyone got along, it'd be a one party state. Where everyone is happy...

...like China


[edit on 6-9-2008 by mattguy404]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I don't know about this. Ask any American, Rep or Dem what they think of Jimmy Carter and you'll not get many positive responses.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Anyone that knows the slighest bit about politics knows the POTUS doesn't even have that much power to begin with.

Potus is the most overrated government position in history.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Well, I don't know about Jimmy Carter, I'm too young for that
. All I know is that if we had a President that listened to the people and didn't have strong beliefs to get in the way, then things would be a lot better today. We would not be in the middle of a pointless war. We would not have 'no child left behind' which is a total disaster. With 'no child left behind', in 10 years, almost no school will recieve funding, as it's impossible to keep doing better. The American people could have told Bush this. The American people could have told Bush the war was a bad idea. Let's start listening to the American people.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewTB
Anyone that knows the slighest bit about politics knows the POTUS doesn't even have that much power to begin with.

Potus is the most overrated government position in history.


I agree, he doesn't hold much power. I think it's mostly about the impression. If we leave an impression with the American people that their opinion matters (instead of Bush, where it obviously doesn't), then we leave a positive outlook with ourselves and the rest of the world. Other countries would respect us more. This would lead to less 'American hate', thus, less likelihood of wars. That's my take on it anyway. It's a domino effect.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Well if this were a democracy and not a Republic, indeed a weak leader would be good.

I don't get why so many think this country is a democracy or that democratic mob rule is a good thing; this is a Constitutional Republic governed by natural law, not by whimsical laws of man which can be corrupted.

The perception of being a democracy is why our nation is being corrupted and abusive of its' powers.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by namehere]

[edit on 6-9-2008 by namehere]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by namehere
 


I'm not sure which is better for the people, a Democracy or a Republic. I simply think that if we claim to be a Democracy, the people's voices should be heard, and not ignored. Having a President that doesn't listen to the people is more like a monarchy then anything else, only with a lot less power.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
You got it backwards. He should not have to poll the people, that was already done when they elected him on his platform and agenda. He should have a strong mandate from the people who elected him to scare other politicians into moving in his direction. Other politicians only fear reelection, and to move away from the president's agenda is not good for reelection. He should confidently move forward with it, showing weakness and uncertainty in what to do will send the wrong message to opponants and he will never get anything done.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SectionEight
 


Yes, but look at it this way, the majority of the people voted for Bush, yet he only has a 25%-30% approval rating (depending on what poll you look at). So in other words, people voted for him thinking he would act one way, when in fact he did the opposite. So you could say he didn't fulfill his promise to the people that voted for him. Now wouldn't it be better if we had a President that cared more about his approval ratings? I sure as Hell think so. And I sure as Hell think that a hard headed politician that doesn't give a rats ass about what the people think should not hold a position such as President.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 

I haven't even read your OP, but you're right. Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out in his book Democracy in America (published before the Civil War) that the United States Constitution, magnificent though it is, contains an ultimately fatal flaw: the system it sets up tends, over time, to concentrate power in the hands of the executive to the detriment of the other two branches of government. 150 years of history have entirely borne him out.

So much for history. However, the solution isn't some wishy-washy president who relies on polls to set policy. That's just pablum, bread and circuses, giving the public what they want. That road leads to the abyss.

It is correct that people should choose their leaders, then let them lead. Leaders are essential: the masses are not fit to lead themselves and never will be. The problem is that in America the office of the executive has become over-mighty; it needs to be set about with more constitutional restraints. But for heaven's sake, when you've elected a leader, let him lead!

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   

as he would actually listen to what the American people have to say.


Obama listened to what the people said about FISA.

He listened to what the people said about the bailout. However, that is all he diid. He voted for FISA and the bailout. What we need is someone who will listen and who will do the will of the people.

Personally, I would hate to see a President run his administration via a poll. Polls wouldn't reflect the fact that most Americans are uneducated on the issues and on government itself. That means people are basing their opinion on how the media, family, or friends see it.

Let's look at Bush last 8 years. What percentage of people do you think fully understand the good and bad of the administration?
Their are a lot of lies, myth, half-truths, and deception mixed in with the actual record.
Unless one does proper research one will never find out the truth.

This is where I give Kudos to many ATS members. Unlike other sites where the majority of issues are based on BS comments, people here are very good at doing research and providing evidence to back up what they say. If more Americans, regardless of parties, were more willing to do this, our government wouldn't be able to pull the wool over our eyes so easily.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


But strong presidents have carried this nation through some very bad times, Lincoln and FDR come immediately to mind.

The thing is the framers of the constituition realized that a three branch government would be inherently unstable with each branch jockeying for dominance and they planned it that way since they believed that a strong executive or judical or legistlative branch could easily become a tyranny. Consequently much of our political history has been a swaying back and forth between the three with most of the dance between the president and congress.

No matter who gets elected they are going to face a resergent congress and it doesn't matter if its McCain or Obama, they are not going to have the ride that bush minor did.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


It seems to me you are working from a weak premise. A weak president is indecisive, would be prone to flip-flopping like a fish out of water, and would weaken our nation's credibility on a global scale.

What this country needs is a president who is willing to make tough decisions, and stick with them for the betterment of the country.

Besides, weakness has never been akin to great leadership.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
The President is there to take the blame and hide the corrupt activities of the rest. When all fails who's to blame? " The President" A weaker President wouldn't matter because both roads lead to the same place. Think about all the democrats and Republicans of our ages and then look where we are now. Both parties lead us along this broken road and now they have all the power to break us. I have lost all trust in our government. So a weak or strong President won't matter or change things.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I see where some of you are coming from.
I think I should restate what I mean by strong.
I do believe that a President should come across as strong to the people.

I simply think that a President should not be so strong and hard headed that he ignores the facts just because he believes that his initial choice was accurate and he is infallible

The truth is that in some cases, it's OK to flip flop.

If George Bush had listened to the facts and 'flip floped' about the war on terror, then he would have realized that there was no reason for us to be in Iraq, and how is that a bad thing?

Politicians are here to represent the people.
If that's true, then why do they go against what the people want?

One of you said that the people don't always know what's best.

That's true, however, if we claim to be a Democracy, then we should atleast consider what the people have to say.
If the people are wrong, then the politicians should tell the people how they are wrong and not dodge the facts.

If the truth is that the American people don't know crap about our situation, then why even pretend to represent the people?

Also, this is more an argument of 'a republic is better than a democracy'.
I never brought that into discussion.
I merely said that a President who is more prone to look at what the people say would make for a better Democracy.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
A President no matter what has to be a leader, and weak people dont make great leaders. I'm certain that many of us throughtout our lifetime have had work, played or relate in some way to a person like that.

Weak people get run over in this world and thats a sad reality, I disagree with calling Bush a strong leader, he was weak! and he got run over by those he surrounded himself, picture this can you imagine Bush debating Cheney? or Rove? Bush dont have a chance against thos two

Leaders like Reagan, , JFK and others in history share one thing in common they are smart. They now the game, they now the time, they have plan A,B,C, all the way to Z,. More impotantly they recognize their weaknesses and work on those and surround themselves with people that can complement them.

So I dont think a weak President could be better for democracy or the country.





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join