|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2010-02-17
© 2010 Peter Belmont
| |
An American president is required by the Constitution to be the chief administrator of the country and to manage its diplomacy and defense.
He is not required to be head of his party or to propose legislation. The legislature has the duty of legislation and can choose to act or to refuse to act (think filibuster!) as it chooses.
If the president would ignore legislation, he could avoid being held prisoner (as to diplomacy and defense) in the games the legislature (and the lobbyists) like to play.
His decisions on whether to continue or curtail the wars would then be his, alone, and not subject to the usual American wheeling and dealing.
His decisions on how to conduct American diplomacy would likewise be his, alone, and not subject to such malign influences as money-flush lobbyists. In other words, he could weigh the so-called “American national interest” without the corruptive “thumb on the scale” of dreams of hoped-for big-money campaign contributions.
|
|
The American president has become the prisoner of all the forces that constrain, and sometimes paralyse, the legislature—politics arising from ideology, lobbying by the monied elites, and sometimes, perhaps, even the politics of popular opinion and re-election.
The president need not be such a prisoner. He may avoid it by refusing two (non-Constitutional) jobs, namely the jobs of “head of party” and “legislative driving force”, which should never have become part of the presidency. Let the political parties manage those jobs and let the president do the work set out for him by the Constitution: the administration of the laws of the land and the management of the nation’s diplomacy and defense.
By (wrongly) accreting to the presidency the work of head of party and chief proposer of legislation, the presidents have taken on an almost insuperable non-Constitutional job (requiring political wheeling and dealing with Congress and with lobbyists) which gets in the way of the presidents Constitutional jobs: administration, diplomacy, and defense.
The political work gets in the way of the Constitutional work in two ways. First, it makes the presidential job immensely larger and more intrinsically difficult. Secondly, because dealing with politicians and lobbyists inevitably requires “wheeling and dealing”, the president soon finds that he must compromise on his Constitutional work in order to get his non-Constitutional work done.
For example, there is much talk just now (Feb 2010) that politicians and lobbyists have been holding up President Obama’s health-care bill in order to prevent him from taking steps they dislike in Israel/Palestine diplomacy. Senator Lieberman in particular—sometimes called the “Senator from Israel”—uses his vote in the Senate as a cudgel over the President. The president takes such blackmail seriously because he is wedded to the idea that his job requires him to prevail in the legislative arena.
It isn’t, Constitutionally, and it shouldn’t be in reality. The presidency, desiring enlargement of presidential powers (the imperial presidency?) has (ironically) reduced his powers. Not only can the president not push legislation through Congress, but he also cannot be the “leader of the world” in diplomacy.
The president would not be subject to such blackmail, such wheeling and dealing, such cudgelling, if he simply gave up introducing legislation and gave up acting as head of party. If he let others do the fund raising for the party, he could ignore the big-money men who would still dominate Congress as a matter of course these days but would no longer dominate the presidency.
I, of course, would like President Obama to teach the American people a lesson in international law by acting as a world leader in the UN and elsewhere, telling Israel to comply with international law by removing all the settlers and the apartheid wall. I believe that this would usher in a time of great progress toward world peace. See here and here.
As matters stand, the president cannot do this without sacrificing his entire legislative leadership— a leadership which, in my view, he should noisily abandon.
The president, often called the “most powerful leader in the world”, is, as matters stand, almost the weakest, hemmed-in by Congress and by the lobbyists. Therefore, the enforcement of international law is hemmed-in by Congress and by the lobbyists, because the president can be compelled to exercise his UNSC veto on Israel’s behalf by pressure from the elites who (non-Constitutionally) control US foreign policy.
There was a time when, quite possibly, the USSR or China might have exercised its own UNSC veto at the behest of gangsters or small non-elected leaderships. What is happening in the US is little different, since a few immensely wealthy men (or corporations) can coerce the president just as surely as if they held a gun to his head.
The world is not well served when small “tails” wag large “dogs”. There is no reason why tiny Israel should get away with a re-writing (in practical effect) of the whole world’s international laws of war and of belligerent military occupation. There is no reason why tiny Israel should be able to “wag” the entire USA (or the entire world system). There is no reason why a few big-money men should be able to make the USA act against its own and the world’s interests. But, in our system, it happens every day.
Of course, any president who might think of taking my advice to “go independent” would do well to consider the fate of JFK, who was believed to be sufficiently independent-minded to be contemplating doing injury to several powerful interests each of which may have had allies within the Mafia and corrupt allies within the FBI, CIA, US Armed Forces, etc. The big-money boys have tools other than mere money itself—they also command whatever money can buy.
But think how splendid it would be for president Obama to bring about major change in the most intractable of the world’s problems—possible, if dangerous, under my scheme—and how sad to do what President Obama is in fact doing, namely, joining all past presidents in succumbing to the power of the elites and doing nothing to ameliorate the world’s problems (or to do his Constitutional duty of managing the nation’s diplomacy).
The American system of governance is badly broken. Even if we fix the problem of the powerless president, as I suggest here, the problem of America as the nation of the money, for the money, and by the money will still be with us.
But one thing at a time. Fixing Congress requires a major behavioral change in about 500 people, all subject to and indebted to the lobbyists. Not an easy problem. Fixing the presidency is far simpler. One man can do it. If he will.
|
