When one thinks of the Presidency, it is easy to see it as a great point of aspiration. We are often told by our teachers and parents things like; "you can achieve anything you want in this life. You could even be President some day.'" When we hear these encouraging thoughts we smile and imagine being that powerful figure. We might think; " I could someday build a 'Presidential Legacy.' " Perhaps the Presidency isn't our aspiration, perhaps we could aspire to be in the Senate or a Supreme Court Justice. We could sure have plenty of power there. We see so many leaders in our day and days past who have attempted to make their mark on the world through some sort of new initiative in law or proposal. I think that we would we better served by leaders who don't look out for their legacy, but look out for individual greatness by getting out of the way of citizens.
In letters between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, there is a long debate over whether the power should sit in the hands of a a strong executive or a strong congress. This debate is integral to the founding of the country, but both of these great men were right and wrong. Congress should be checked by the executive and the President should watch Congress closely. If the two don't have a level of mistrust toward the other than we as citizens suffer. Or, in other words, a happy relationship between these two branches means a greater loss of freedom for the citizen. Gridlock is good.
Nanny State laws, or those laws protecting, individuals from themselves, are instances where there has been too much thought put into how the wise political class can protect the unwitting masses. Currently, there are proposals to place higher taxes on soda, cigarettes and a variety of other consumables that are deemed unhealthy. Many in Washington circles call this nudging, it's not taking choices away, it's just helping people make better choices. This is the same mentality that is proposing laws that would force restaurants to list health information on menus. There is never any discussion on the vast cost that these regulations put on businesses and taxpayers, just that wise experts in the beltway know better how to help you, help you. When companies are able to be sued because the hot coffee is hot, or because the numbing pain killer numbed, then what you have is a giant Nanny State that starts with seatbelt laws, dietary guides, sin taxes and who really knows where it will end except for fewer freedoms for individuals to recover from their own mistakes, mis-judgments and missteps. With the growth of the Judicial branch, in relation to where the courts feel that they 'must' intervene, there has been a steady growth in the size and scope of all three branches.
Tyranny by Emotion.
What happens when we have a strong executive, or a strong legislative body? The results are best seen in other forms of government. Russia has a strong executive. The convoluted, two-headed monster of the Putin/Medvedev Presidency has sweeping powers that can imprison, fire, or shut down opposition. Is there a Parliament? Yes, but the majority of power lies in the hands of the two leaders. The President can enlist Parliament's help on various subjects but if he really wants to achieve something, there is little to hinder him. In spite of the sweeping powers of the executive, the popularity of the leader(s) is quite high. People in Russia feel assured that strong leadership is running their country. The fact that the media is constantly at risk, as well as enterprise is just the cost of a strong leader who offers security. This is a clear case of tyranny by emotion.
What about a strong parliamentary system? In many Western European countries there are strong parliaments where the executives are simply the leaders of parliament. In many of these countries there are several parties who all have a segment of the seats in parliament. When the largest party comes to power they have a short time period wherein they must put a coalition government together by enlisting smaller parties to form a majority. So, the executive is the parliamentary leader who has worked out deals to attain power. In these coalition governments the smaller parties can opt out of the government and trigger a new election. These countries often have a populous that is so tired of the coalition wrangling that the people don't vote. The tyranny of these stronger parliamentary systems is that a large segment of the population can vote to get one movement forwarded through their favorite party, but because that party doesn't have a full majority, the largest party must compromise their platform to form a government. Then if the executive does or even says something that upsets some member of the coalition, the government can collapse. This system is not based on real majority rule. It is based more in the executive not upsetting people's feelings. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was once in the Dutch Parliament. She was an outspoken leader of the movement to hold the radical Muslims in her country accountable. When her opponents found out that her immigration status was questionable, a firestorm erupted in the parliament and the coalition collapsed and a new election was triggered. A government run heavily on emotion is a government that does not represent the majority. The voters who brought the largest party to power are shafted because of an inter-chamber Soap Opera.
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
