As the population continues to grow nationally as well as globally and problems continue to grow nationally as well as globally, I am left to wonder if one President can continue to divide his/her attention between Domestic and foreign Policy. Based on the last 8 years I would have to say NO.

In the last eight years, the President has had to focus more of his time dealing with foreign issues and for the vast part ignoring the domestic issues. These issues include trade, terrorists, two wars, AIDS, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Israeli-Palestinians, War on Drugs, and I am sure you fellow members could add many more. Seem like every time the President was ready to tackle a domestic issue, something would happen that would divert his attention. I feel that this will continue to be a trend for future Presidents.

On top of all of this, how can anyone expect a President to be fully educated on such a long range of issues both domestically and globally. Depending on the recommendation of advisor is OK but I feel the President should fully understand the issue before taking action on what an advisor recommends. This is almost impossible for any President to do. therefore, the advisors are the ones who are really running the show. We did not elect the advisors to run the country.

I know this will probably never happen but I really think it is time to elect two Presidents. One to take care of Domestic policy and another to take care of Foreign Policy. I don't have all the answers as to how all this will work but feel our nation and this world is getting too big and complicated for one person to handle.


I wonder a lot if this crisis would have ever materialized if we had a President overlooking the economy while the other one tackled foreign issues.



Does anybody think this is a good idea or bad idea?



This is not a Bush Bashing thread. Keep it to the topic.




NOTE: Mods, feel free to move if not posted in right place.

I sorta like your idea, but honestly the only way I think America can get back on track is if we have another civil war. Then again, if that happened another country would certainly take advantage of it.


People seem to forget the role of a president now a days. They aren't supposed to do it all (like most seem to believe). I would say the dumbed down version would be to say the presidents policies live through who he appoints.

e.g. Barack Obama does not know his way around the political arena. He'd be less likely to choose the right guys IMHO as compared to John McCain who knows more or less who is crooked.

Im sure im making no sense atm so im off to bed.

[edit on 10/24/2008 by AndrewTB]

I think I'd have one president for foreign policy only (except a Senate tiebreaker in domestic affairs), but two Vice Presidents, one elected only by liberals, the other only by conservatives, and that each would have domestic authority over the respective states supporting those ideologies. I would set up a similar system in the Senate, where every state had 5 Senators; two conservatives, two liberals and one that was open to both parties. Six year terms for everyone, but there would be a one-term limit on everyone.

In this manner, everyone has domestic representation. With two executives on the domestic front, reconciling their interactions with the Senate would be tricky, admittedly.

Ah, screw it. The best solution is actually already in our constitution. Give the power to govern domestically back to the states (and the people) where it belongs. The federal government should only be involved in loose oversight and managing foreign affairs.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by vor78]