Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As an outsider your political system appears to make it nigh on impossible for a US President to get anything truly constructive or radical achieved whilst in power. Within two years of being elected you have the Congressional elections? From what I've seen they usually end up giving the opposition the majority, and due to the two parties being so fundamentally different, it becomes nigh on impossible to get anything passed. On top of that they then need to be looking to the election that is coming up in two years time. Given the size of the US is this really the most practical way to govern?

 Wolfstan wrote:
As an outsider your political system appears to make it nigh on impossible for a US President to get anything truly constructive or radical achieved whilst in power. Within two years of being elected you have the Congressional elections? From what I've seen they usually end up giving the opposition the majority, and due to the two parties being so fundamentally different, it becomes nigh on impossible to get anything passed. On top of that they then need to be looking to the election that is coming up in two years time. Given the size of the US is this really the most practical way to govern?

Yes.

It protects us from fools and dreamers. Its only when one party gets a hold of both the executive and legislative functions, that some really bad stuff can happen.

Your perspective is skewed somewhat since bipartisanship is so low right now. As Frazz said, a certain amount of gridlock actually keeps the country on a course somewhere in the middle. It may seem a crazy way to do things, but it kinda works.

Problems may arise when the gridlock prevents big issues from being addressed. We just have to hope that the men and women in office are good enough to get something done when it's absolutely required. Usually they do.

Also note that the POTUS isn't supposed to be a king. The rest of our government isn't there to make his agenda happen.

FWIW, I think the 2-year term for Representatives is an issue. They have to spend about half their time in office trying to get re-elected, which IMO isn't a positive for the people.

FDR managed to get radical things done, and so has Obama. Just not as much as he'd like.

Just like to remind non-British posters that the OP comes from a country thats upper house is completely unelected

 Testify wrote:
FDR managed to get radical things done, and so has Obama. Just not as much as he'd like.

Just like to remind non-British posters that the OP comes from a country thats upper house is completely unelected

It likewise bears pointing out that the House of Lords has, particularly during the reigns of large-majority governments (Thatcher's in the mid-80s, Blair's in the late-90s), been regarded in political circles as more effectively filling the role of the opposition than the second party in the Commons, since its members are appointed for life, and thus free from the obligation to bow either to the party line or popular sentiment.

 English Assassin wrote:

 Testify wrote:
FDR managed to get radical things done, and so has Obama. Just not as much as he'd like.

Just like to remind non-British posters that the OP comes from a country thats upper house is completely unelected

It likewise bears pointing out that the House of Lords has, particularly during the reigns of large-majority governments (Thatcher's in the mid-80s, Blair's in the late-90s), been regarded in political circles as more effectively filling the role of the opposition than the second party in the Commons, since its members are appointed for life, and thus free from the obligation to bow either to the party line or popular sentiment.

And there is legislation that allows the Commons to bypass the Lords anyway, so it really is more of a place to raise issues than anything else. It can't act as a block to Commons legislation if the Commons doesn't wish it to.

 Testify wrote:
FDR managed to get radical things done, and so has Obama. Just not as much as he'd like.

Just like to remind non-British posters that the OP comes from a country thats upper house is completely unelected

... but it does work As English Assassin pointed out, as much as people moan that it's un-elected they have made the government in power stop and think. Even change tack. Perhaps their unique position gives them the freedom to actually be more of a balanced person politically? No pressure to conform, no need to say things that make voters happy. Who knows.

 Lux_Lucis wrote:

 English Assassin wrote:

 Testify wrote:
FDR managed to get radical things done, and so has Obama. Just not as much as he'd like.

Just like to remind non-British posters that the OP comes from a country thats upper house is completely unelected

It likewise bears pointing out that the House of Lords has, particularly during the reigns of large-majority governments (Thatcher's in the mid-80s, Blair's in the late-90s), been regarded in political circles as more effectively filling the role of the opposition than the second party in the Commons, since its members are appointed for life, and thus free from the obligation to bow either to the party line or popular sentiment.

And there is legislation that allows the Commons to bypass the Lords anyway, so it really is more of a place to raise issues than anything else. It can't act as a block to Commons legislation if the Commons doesn't wish it to.

Utilising the 1911 Parliament Act is something of "nuclear option", however. Using it oblige a government to stake their reputation on a bill to which there is evident opposition, and overuse of it (or the threat of it) invites the Lords to further intransigence (as notably occurred during the late years of Thatcher's government, when the Lords became home to a number of former Tory ministers who resented the dogmatic new-right direction in which she had taken their party). There's a reason it's only been invoked seven times since 1911 (in practice it's actually been invoked ten times, but on only seven of those occasions has it actually been employed).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfstan wrote:
... but it does work As English Assassin pointed out, as much as people moan that it's un-elected they have made the government in power stop and think. Even change tack. Perhaps their unique position gives them the freedom to actually be more of a balanced person politically? No pressure to conform, no need to say things that make voters happy. Who knows.

Indeed. Combined with the fact that nobody can agree on how the Lords should be reformed or replaced, this is what has kept them in place.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Given the size of the US is this really the most practical way to govern?

No. This country is in perpetual elections and the result is political parties who focus on campaigns rather than policy. This is especially pronounced among Republicans since 2008.

 English Assassin wrote:

 Testify wrote:
FDR managed to get radical things done, and so has Obama. Just not as much as he'd like.

Just like to remind non-British posters that the OP comes from a country thats upper house is completely unelected

It likewise bears pointing out that the House of Lords has, particularly during the reigns of large-majority governments (Thatcher's in the mid-80s, Blair's in the late-90s), been regarded in political circles as more effectively filling the role of the opposition than the second party in the Commons, since its members are appointed for life, and thus free from the obligation to bow either to the party line or popular sentiment.

Well, you can prove anything with facts can't you.

 Manchu wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Given the size of the US is this really the most practical way to govern?

No. This country is in perpetual elections and the result is political parties who focus on campaigns rather than policy.

The only big issue I have with term lengths is in the House. It'd be interesting to see them moved to 3-year terms. It'd give them an additional year to do their jobs, and also detach the House races from the Presidential cycle.

I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.

I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...

Yep.

 whembly wrote:
I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.

I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...

You think?! That's 2,000 years of Western democracy out the window then. Best mark that down as a failed experiment

 Wolfstan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.

I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...

You think?! That's 2,000 years of Western democracy out the window then. Best mark that down as a failed experiment

I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.

I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...

You think?! That's 2,000 years of Western democracy out the window then. Best mark that down as a failed experiment

I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.

^^^ this.

When one party controls both Congress/Prez, the extremism gets play...

When it's divided, compromise is the name of the game and the extreme elements are mitigated.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.

I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...

You think?! That's 2,000 years of Western democracy out the window then. Best mark that down as a failed experiment

I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.

Exactly. It prevents no change at all or too much change too quickly.

Then, rival politicans can complain about there not being enough change to try and get elected, and the thus the circle of political life is formed.

Frazzled wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
As an outsider your political system appears to make it nigh on impossible for a US President to get anything truly constructive or radical achieved whilst in power. Within two years of being elected you have the Congressional elections? From what I've seen they usually end up giving the opposition the majority, and due to the two parties being so fundamentally different, it becomes nigh on impossible to get anything passed. On top of that they then need to be looking to the election that is coming up in two years time. Given the size of the US is this really the most practical way to govern?

Yes.

It protects us from fools and dreamers. Its only when one party gets a hold of both the executive and legislative functions, that some really bad stuff can happen.

Frazzled has the right of it.
Just to give you an example, currently in Canada the sitting government also has a majority in the house, and as such they can basically do whatever the Hell they like, and as a result there is a chance that "downer cows" will be allowed in Canadian meat (you can look up how bad an idea that is).

The trouble in the US right now is that for the last two years, the opposition party had decided that they were going to ensure that nothing was accomplished, rather than act as the counterpoint that ensures reasonable compromise.

You also have a Presidency that hasn't worked with, well anyone really, since the ACA was passed.

 Frazzled wrote:
You also have a Presidency that hasn't worked with, well anyone really, since the ACA was passed.

Spoken as though the Presidency has the power to set Congressional agendas.

It has the power of the pulpit and indeed usaully does set the agenda.

 Frazzled wrote:

I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.

Of course, in the past, the parties were split internally along ideological lines, which is no longer the case; especially in the GOP.

So what. before we had physical fights in Congress. Yet Presidents managed to address things. If the President is not going to husband his agenda, no one else will. here's a hint, giving a few speeches is not husbanding your agenda.

 Frazzled wrote:
It has the power of the pulpit and indeed usaully does set the agenda.

No, the various Congressional committees set the agenda. The President has two powers:

First is, as you say, the power of the pulpit which makes him a highly recognizable figure that is able to lay out a clear rhetorical line for the electorate. In the past, before mass telecommunication, this made it easy for him to distract from what Congress was actually doing; now that's essentially impossible.

Second: the veto, which enables him at least some say over what cannot be passed without large amounts of Congressional support.

What the President cannot do is force Congress to work towards any particular aim. He can try and develop national support for a particular policy, but ultimately Congressmen and Senators don't care about national support, they only car about support within their constituency. You could argue that he holds some sway within his own party, but the reality is closer to the opposite; the party has an agenda and the President serves as its leading advocate. Just look at Obama's Presidency. He hasn't pushed for a anything that has not been a significant part of the Democrat platform for the last 20 years, the one exception being the stimulus which is consistent with nominal Democrat economic policy (and a special case).

And as leader of his party, the leading members of each committee press his agenda.

He can't force them to by law no. He can do a whole lot otherwise to motivate Congressional members. If he can't or won't then he is weak and someone else is needed to press the agenda. Someone with more gravitas.

Do you think LBJ would have sat on the sidelines crying "Wo is me. Congress won't do anything? Wa!" No. Enither, nixon, nor Eisenhower, nor Clinton.

This one doesn't. And nothing gets done, not even out of the Senate.

 Frazzled wrote:
So what. before we had physical fights in Congress. Yet Presidents managed to address things. If the President is not going to husband his agenda, no one else will. here's a hint, giving a few speeches is not husbanding your agenda.

The problem is that you're looking at agendas as exclusive to the Presidency, which is foolish. There are occasions where Presidents have pushed unpopular agendas, but in the cases where they have managed to see them through they have either bent, or outright broken, the law, or made judicious use of the veto power (FDR is a great example).

I know you're going to cite TR and Reagan. But in the case of TR you see a President advocating a set of policies that already had significant bipartisan support in an environment where the parties themselves were nowhere near as homogeneous as they are today, nor as powerful. And in the case of Reagan you see the Republicans taking the majority in both houses on a platform of fiscal conservatism that they began successfully pushing under Carter, with the majority of Democrats that remained in power being centrist to conservative in their own right. In essence, Reagan didn't develop bipartisan support for his work on the economy, it already existed due to past events.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So what. before we had physical fights in Congress. Yet Presidents managed to address things. If the President is not going to husband his agenda, no one else will. here's a hint, giving a few speeches is not husbanding your agenda.

The problem is that you're looking at agendas as exclusive to the Presidency, which is foolish. There are occasions where Presidents have pushed unpopular agendas, but in the cases where they have managed to see them through they have either bent, or outright broken, the law, or made judicious use of the veto power (FDR is a great example).

I know you're going to cite TR and Reagan. But in the case of TR you see a President advocating a set of policies that already had significant bipartisan support in an environment where the parties themselves were nowhere near as homogeneous as they are today, nor as powerful. And in the case of Reagan you see the Republicans taking the majority in both houses on a platform of fiscal conservatism that they began successfully pushing under Carter, with the majority of Democrats that remained in power being centrist to conservative in their own right. In essence, Reagan didn't develop bipartisan support for his work on the economy, it already existed due to past events.

I'm not actually. If his agenda is substantially different than both parties, than maybe the agenda is coockoo.

Again, Presidents have historically been able to craft legislation with compromises from both parties to a greater or lesser extent. Those that copuldn't get it together didn't achieve anything worth noting on the legislative front.

Great achievers on the legislative front: Roosevelt (pick one), Johnson, Reagan, Clinton. They all had to deal with hostile Congress's for a portion of their presidency, and still suceeded.

Four more years! (for Clinton) Four more years! (for Clinton)
If you can't do it, get out and make way for someone who can.

 Frazzled wrote:
And as leader of his party, the leading members of each committee press his agenda.

The President is not the leader of his party, I don't even know where you're getting that idea. The leaders of each individual part is the membership of their respective national committees. They are responsible for setting the parties' platforms, and therefore their agendas. The President can influence policy (primarily by way of Executive privilege), but ultimately he has no more say over what the members of his party in each committee might do than the DNC/RNC itself does. Indeed, if his party isn't in the majority in the relevant house, he may have virtually no say do the realities of committee structure.

 Frazzled wrote:

He can't force them to by law no. He can do a whole lot otherwise to motivate Congressional members. If he can't or won't then he is weak and someone else is needed to press the agenda. Someone with more gravitas.

Do you think LBJ would have sat on the sidelines crying "Wo is me. Congress won't do anything? Wa!" No. Enither, nixon, nor Eisenhower, nor Clinton.

What, explicitly, can the President do to compel members of Congress to take his side? Particularly members of Congress in the opposition? Because to me it just sounds like you're attributing some kind of mystical powers to the office that it doesn't possess.

Well if he can't handle it he can always resign...