Does anyone "run" the country?
The oddest thing about - which Barack Obama has already described as an attempt to "scare up votes" - is that the person answering the phone is fully clothed and appears to be sitting at a desk.
Meanwhile this from Sam Davis in Maryland, USA:
Justin,
When you have a few, surf over to :
The story repeats a line that occurs all too frequently in news stories, namely that the president (in this case, the Nigerian president) "runs" the country. I've seen this line in many stories, not just from the 主播大秀 but many others, about many presidents and prime ministers.
It's a distortion, if not an outright falsehood, used without thinking. In no sense do presidents or prime ministers of democratic nations "run" their countries.
Truth be told, they have a difficult time just running their governments, especially with bureaucracies and parliaments and congresses with their own differing agendas also in the mix, not to mention political rivals and special interest groups.
I sent a comment to the 主播大秀 website, as I sometimes do, but expect nothing but the normal autoreply.
To me this is a very serious issue, because it's one more example of how the media, unthinkingly, perpetuates ideology and become propagandists. After reading or hearing that line about presidents "running the country" over the decades, in my opinion it propagates the notion among the public at large a president or a PM "should" run the country.
And that, I believe, lays the subliminal groundwork for acceptance of greater and greater government intervention in the economy and individual lives.
Naturally, I asked whoever reads those website-generated missives to "stop it" and cited the same things you see above, but I doubt they'll throw up their hands at the 主播大秀 and say, "Oh, no, now old Davis stateside over in Annapolis is onto this and we have to mend our ways."
However, it might well be a starting point for a more general discussion - perhaps on your blog? - about how subtle use of language by media folk, especially the constant repetition of something that might seem innocuous at first blush, can actually have profound effect on public perception, or the "memes" that are accepted as "truth," as Eric Drexler noted in "Engines of Creation" some 20 years back.
This strikes me as a particularly important discussion in this U.S. presidential year, when the major candidates are making all sorts of policy proposals and the media are reporting and commenting on them in all sorts of ways.
Even slight skewing now, such as that "run the country" business, results in much wider skewing later, just as the variance of even a degree off course in the initial flight of an airplane results in overshooting the destination by hundreds of miles.
"Gosh, we started off to have a constitutional republic. How did we end up with this Napoleon fellow?"
Is he right?
We certainly have a horrible over-emphasis on the Imperial Presidency - I doubt most people in the UK know or care that Congress is likely to remain Democrat controlled this year (with huge potential ramifications for whoever becomes president) and too often the US is characterised by the sitting president (BUSH ! Warmongers CLINTON ! philanderers, etc) but on the other hand presidents do matter. Don't they?
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
He's absolutely right, and lately I've noticed a similar thing happening when describing the economy. In story after story, you see phrases like "the economy ground to a halt in December." Um, no. What actually happened is that economic growth (in the US, at least) ground to a halt, and that's a huge difference. Economic activity (the economy, in other words) went on pretty much as it had the month before. People bought and sold things, went to work, etc.
There's a big effort to sell fear, but whether it's conscious or has a motive I don't know.
With the exception of the initial burst of the Newt Gingrich regime in Congress in 1995, the driving force in Washington since the Great Depression has been the Presidency. It was not Congress who pressed for the New Deal, the Great Society, Reaganomics, the Gulf War(s)...for better or worse, while the President isn't the Decider (no matter what this one thinks), he is indisputably the agenda-setter in all but the most extreme circumstances; even when an outside force intervenes, it's more likely to be a Supreme Court decision or a foreign conflict driving the action rather than Congress.
Whether they let the President's initiatives come to fruition...that's another story altogether.
After James A. Garfield was assassinated the country ran without a president or congress for several months without any huge problems. If the president was just removed I think things would still run fairly smoothly.
Hi Justin,
I enjoy your blog very much and check it at least once a day for your coverage of our primary elections here. I think the second oddest thing about the new Clinton video is that Hillary allows the phone on her desk to ring seven times before picking up. If I were calling, I would have hung up by then. How "ready" is that?
I think highlighting the term to 'run' a country is worthwhile highlighting as a speech act and it is a necessity in all democratic states to demonstrate such viglance in reflecting upon what our media means by their writing. As a Brit though I do find the Presidential office fascinating in that it is idealised to one person encompassing an entire countries values. While there are checks and balances coming from the judicial and legislative branches; if the executive does not 'run' the country they certainly have particular leverage in getting things going in a particular. direction.
Sam, I agree. It's like democracy is suffering death by a thousand cuts.
Way back, wasn't the country supposed to be run by the people, via their elected representatives? And the president was supposed to just "preside" over their deliberations - like an impartial referee?
We've come a long way, yes?
Sam IS absolutely right.
Everything single thing we each do and say increases in magnitude down the line. We need to be much more thoughtful---all of us.
Another thing most people don't much consider about the American Presidency is that the President isn't the end-all/be-all. He (or she) is just one component of a team. He IS, however, the leader.
And as the leader, he should inspire us, foster teamwork among citizens and members of government, and even branches of government; encourage us to work for the betterment of the whole...parent us, if you will, to look beyond our own special little niche in the scheme of things to see us as one big family that looks after each other. It's how we started America and we need to reach toward that ideal, again.
Justin, have you noticed this comments thread over on Taegan Goddard?
If you scroll down to the end you'll notice that some people have discovered that Hillary's video would appear to be a ripoff of something an amateur posted on Youtube back at the start of January, in support of John McCain.
As to Sam Davis' comment, I think he's right. Back at the start of the 1980s one of the premises of the Thatcher revolution was that the job of the government is to govern the country, not to manage it, and we as a country became far more liberal (in the classical sense) as a result. The implication that it's the job of governments to 'run' the country would seem to signal the opposite. Whether or not this kind of linguistic bias will have a lasting effect is difficult to determine, but I think he's right to identify it and raise some questions.
This is a turn up! A journalist seemingly advocating media studies... (It always struck me as odd that the media in the UK keeps calling media studies degrees 'micky mouse' - what are they afraid of?)
At long last, someone in the thick of it sees why it's important that we educate people about the way the media operates.
I can see quite a few universities getting in touch with you the day you decide to pack in the journalism game...
What an excellent comment! I think it is true that media coverage in many ways does shape how people perceive reality. Journalists do have a responsibility to choose their words carefully. They are in a difficult position, as they have to reduce complexities into easy articles, but some prudence should be taken.
The importance of this has definitely been shown in the elections this year, and it is interesting how it can be twisted by those that should know better. I find it interesting that since the press really started commending Obama for his oratory skills, Clinton has launched constant attacks that he is all talk and no show. Is this really the case? If so, how has he come this far? You cannot come this far in American politics especially just on sounding good alone. I think that she is just jealous and scared of his prowess, and this is the only way she can attack him.
Another side line, but something in the same premise... isn't it about time the press stopped calling anything even remotely controversial "...gate". It is driving me insane - especially as Watergate had nothing to do with water!!!
They DO matter, but not for the reasons most people think. The president in the United States has many more powers (especially now, utilizing executorial power during wartime)than most want to admit when it comes to setting the agenda, and possibly enacting executive orders. Most of this is checked by congress and the judiciary.
However, those powers are not necessarily the power to 'run the country'. The power is to lobby congress, and to use the bully pulpit as well as veto power to get his/her point across. Congress ultimately has more power to 'run the country' than does our president. The president gets to set the agenda, which gives him a puppet master feel - but ultimately it is our congress-people who do the running in conjunction with our state governments.
The Federalism split in American makes any claim that 'one person' runs the country completely asinine - unfortunately, most people don't even understand what a federalist system is nor do they care to learn how the separation of powers truly works. This lack of knowledge has allowed a great strengthening of the American President over the system of checks and balances created by our founders.
History would show and the present incumbent would prove that a two-term president has a very small time window in which to accomplish his key objectives. The checks and balances built into the American system of government seem to prevent the possibility of an 'Imperial' President.
That is a boring, lazy semantic point that nobody really cares about. You shouldn't have bothered answering it. Don't rise to the bait of these time wasters.
Get a grip people. What's the point of being overly technical? The fact is the head of government in most countries is the most powerful politician and therefore the person who should take the flack. How elese do you describe this persons job without saying they run the country?
And Justin, please don't risk entering the spin zone. Even people who accuse America of being warmongers are generally only referring to the Bush administration. We all know about Americans like Michael Moore. We all know that Bush doesn't reflect the views of the entire American populace. But when your talking about the views of the main politician in a country, it's just easier to refer to that country in general. It is just the way of things.
Anyway, Conress may be controlled by the Democrats but the big international decisions that have destroyed this planet have come from the Bush administration. Certainly the biggest catastrophe was ordered by the Bush administration - Iraq. Congress may have approved it but Bush ordered it.
I think Sam makes a very good point, though I don't share his concern that claims about a politician "running" the country are leading to "acceptance of greater and greater government intervention in the economy and individual lives." I think, rather, it obscures - in a fashion we all find flattering and palatable and hence the myth's stubborn dominion - how social life actually operates. To cite from the German sociologist Norbert Elias's analysis of aristocratic court life: 鈥渆ven the autonomy of the mightiest king has fixed limits; even he is enmeshed in a net of dependences the structures of which can be determined with a high degree of precision.鈥 As he concluded: "However apt or inapt the historical theory may be that places only the unique and individual aspects of the historical process in the foreground, what is certain is that in this emphasis a specific, socially engendered form of human consciousness is reflected.鈥 As Sam's comment and the current bout of Obama-mania suggest, it will be a tough form to topple.
I think he's on to something. It's similar to how advertising agencies try to generate "buzz" about the products their schilling. You hear something enough you begin to wonder if it's true, especially if you through up enough demographics to support it. No matter how true the numbers may be, it's not likely your average person can be bothered to fact check them. At least that鈥檚 seems to be true in the states.
I think Sam touches on two issues. The first, the media. The media should report present the facts as gathered and not add editorial comment, or embellish to 鈥榮ensationalise鈥. Once it is embellished for 鈥榞eneral consumption鈥 the message has been tainted. The message is then 鈥渂iased鈥 and hence has the ability to distort the perception; the resultant distortion becomes the story, not the facts it was based upon. If indeed there were any facts to start with!
It seems many Americans who watch the 主播大秀 for the first time and comment on this blog give praise to the 主播大秀 as a breath of fresh air to the myopic or distorted news presented by the US main stream. However, now I live outside the UK, I only see 主播大秀 world, and on Saturday mornings it is 主播大秀 World America. I have noticed how the US version of the 主播大秀 news is slowly (bit by bit) pandering to the audience in the same way the main stream does鈥here is too much editorial comment and often just to get a sound bite response to be the next headline in the up and coming hourly bulletin. (There is always some 鈥榮ocial or political鈥 commentator in the studio who is from the US giving a myopic US point of view based upon the distorted evidence or sound bite just obtained, just as US media does). You wouldn鈥檛 get J.Paxman doing this, he just wants the facts and doesn鈥檛 care about image. So, the media is consciously or not, influencing the audience by what 鈥渋t鈥 sees rather than what it should be reporting. Not the 主播大秀 of old...
Secondly, from the evidence of these blogs and the way the president is now elected, the president does appear to be more of a figure head, a PR face, than someone who 鈥渞ules鈥. The president has so many advisors and policy makers who are not elected whom influence every aspect of what is 鈥渄one鈥 in the name of the president; so who does actually run the country? The lobbyists have such 鈥榩ower鈥 that candidates are 鈥渟wayed鈥 by their 鈥榩resence鈥 especially if they dug deep for their 鈥榤an鈥. In most other countries this would be called corruption. Yet in the extreme, having one person ruling the country is also called a dictator!
The balance and checks of parliament or congress, do they help or hinder the PM or President?
I think it is interesting that we are considering 'who' runs a country. I understand that media emphasis can effect peoples choices, but the real question is is there a choice anyway. anyway?
To be a presidential candidate you need to have lots of special interest money, big, big money. In theory places like America are a democracy, in reality you can only choose for this person who represents this set of special interests, or that person who represents that set of special interests. Forget the nuances, money runs the country, the president is just a mouthpiece.
Money, ultimately comes from making something. Sadly, I believe many industrialists would love to see a level playing field in the market, but they have no choice but to rape the resources and exploit the people before their competitors do. This is the real problem and you cannot actually blame them.
I do not know what the answer is.
What is the word for rule by money anyway, there must be a better word than capitalism.
I'm a huge Obama supporter. But nothing would make me happier than a "weak" presidency and a Strong Congress. Right now the US is far too close for my taste to the point where Congress is irrelevant and Historical when the Executive branch gains that kind of power like what happened with the Roman Senate it establishes a very bad system for us Plebes.
I don't mean a President has to be weak to the point of incompetency but a President who's willing to let Congress do it's job. And to do his and to not veto every bill the opposing faction comes up with.
Of course, if Obama wins I think he should be a bit worried every time he gives his state of the Union. I don't doubt there are more than a few Brutuses in the Republican members of Congress.
"...and too often the US is characterised by the sitting president .."
Yes, when Congress, and the major media (& us, the citizens) fail in their oversight duties , the president does do a lot more "running".
Justin
But George DOES run the USA. He told us all on Wednesday April 19 2006 ...
'I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the DECIDER, and I DECIDE what is best.'
(This was in context of Donald Rumsfeld remaining as Defence Secretary but even so).
Or how about
My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." (Oct. 3, 2007)
Or even ....
"My job is a job to make decisions. I'm a decision -- if the job description were, what do you do -- it's decision maker." (April 19, 2007)
Your not saying George is telling porkies are you and he dosn't run the USA?
But this is a serious point. The public THINK that politicians run the country so it's a ministers fault if say CDs with the names of child benefit claimants go missing or an MI5 officer leaves their lap top in the pub. Equally in the NHS its the Governments fault if someone catches an infection and not the fact that a Doctor or nurse (or even a visitor) failed to wash their hands.
But do politicians really matter?. After all Belgium still continured 'running' even though it had no formal government for a while after its last election. The trains and buses still ran, people got their benefits and no one invaded etc. - the civil servants etc just continued doing their jobs as before.
Tough one this !
Sam Davis makes an extremely valid point. The president of the US is the leader of the executive branch of government, but is accountable to Congress (legislative branch) to enact and pass into law any policies the president wants. Also, I think many people forget or are ignorant of the fact that Congress controls the money in the US. The President may be blamed for many things, but when it comes down to financing things (war comes to mind) without Congress' approval of funds, the money would not be there. President Bush has no such Napoleonic powers, despite world opinion, and is one part of the 3 ring circus of US government power shared by Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.
"Runs"? Perhaps not. "Leads"? One would hope so.
I suspect that the extent to which presidents matter depends on a whole array of things, starting with their actual constitutional powers and spiraling out from there in a wonderful fractal of complexity.
I would have thought that, as a single individual, looking at his power in terms of Potestas, Auctoritas and Imperium, a US president 'matters' more than almost any other individual on the planet.
I completely agree with this artical. It's a great reassurance to see someone else feeling a bit uneasy with the huge focus on the US presidency. From what I can tell the US government was set up so that it would coordinate soldiers, provide law inforcement and courts of law, and generally promote common law; then be generally ineffective at "running" things, that is: opressing people. The way I see it is the USG then is supposed to step back and let the free market be free and empower itself.
Again, this artical is a huge ecouragement and I can't wait to tell my friends so we can discuss this.
Does anyone "run" the country? The answer to this question points out the vast difference between the European mentality and the American mentality. Europeans subscribe to a concept of strong centralized authority. Whether that authority is one individual as it was in the past, a King, Tsar, or Pope, or an elected committee whether by public election in many parties or of preselected candidates from choices limited to one party's rule as in the USSR, centrialization and unity of power is the operative doctrine of Europe and those other countries modeled on it. This is why so many Europeans find the notion of an EU even with a secret unaccountable bureaucracy and Parliament running it not only acceptable but attractive. It is why the executive branch of so called Parliamentary democracies is run by the leading members of the legislative branch with whom it colludes. In fact if there is not unity in the exercise of power, the government falls and there has to be a new election.
In the US, the notion of centralized power is loathed as a mater of deep rooted cultural and historical experience. Americans are instinctively suspicious of government and authority. This is the genius of the invention of The United States of America. Of the three documents which created it, the Declaration of Independence gave the justification for the rejection of centrally unified authority because it is an open road to tyranny while the Constitution and Bill of Rights created a government where power is so fractured and dispersed, that it is very difficult for enough individuals to collude to exercise it with impunity. The government is effectively paralyzed except when action is to the mutual benefit of the different branches. To thwart collusion for other than the benefit of large constituencies, the Constitution creates an antagonism among the three branches of government and between the State and Federal governments, each entity in a constant tug of war with the others to achieve greater power at the margins of its realm. The system isn't perfect and can break down but it usually works. For instance, President Clinton would probably have liked to sign the Kyoto Protocol but the Senate made it clear to him in no uncertain terms by voting in a Sense of the Senate vote 95-0 that it would reject the treaty so Clinton pulled out of the talks because it would have been a waste of time to continue. Most large American corporations are built along the same model which explains their success. As a management trainee in the 26th largest corporation in the US at the time when I was fresh out of college, it was made clear in talks by top management that the principle of the Corporate structure was decentralization of power handing both responsibility and authority to the lowest possible level practical and then holding individuals to account for their actions. If they were successful they were rewarded with money and promotions, if not, rewards were witheld or in extreme cases, the individuals were demoted or fired. It is what we now call individual empowerment, a notion EVERY management consultant in the US would put at the top of the list of recommendations for restructing corporations to make them more profitable. This is not a matter of altruistic idealism, it is the practical solution to the problem of how to effectively operate a large organization.
So who "runs" America? The President may be a convenient symbol because he is a single individual but he heads only one of three co-equal branches of the Federal Government which itself must share power with the State governments. Therefore, the ability to cooperate and convince sufficient numbers of people to join a course of action is a key asset necessary to success in government here. The first test is fund raising to finance a campaign to get elected in the first place. And the grueling campaign running for high office such as President itself is a proving ground for the candidates who will face a far longer and more grueling challenge once in office. Failure in either of these areas is fatal and the weaker candidates become road kill, often quickly. Look at how many there were a year ago running for president and how few are left. So who "runs" America? No one...and everyone.
I agree that the president doesn't do everything and is not "running" the country, but the word is used with some legitimacy. I mean, if you were to think of a single person with the greatest responsibility of "running" the country, you would think of the president. With a similar Congress for a while now, except for the change in 2004, the biggest changes we've experienced as citizens have been with the changes of the president. Also, it was mentioned that the president has a hard time running the government, let alone the country. But if you are running the government, and the government runs the country, aren't you running the country by transitional laws of mathematics?
Thanks for publishing this comment. I think he's got something! Every country has got its propaganda machine. It is each citizen's personal and collective responsibility to inform himself/herself to sift through the propaganda. We Americans were taught, at least in my generation, that the government was not higher than the people, but rather instruments, servants to us. All Americans ought to remember this and use their voices and actions to move this nation eg the Washington elite to not only remember its roots, values and traditions but also to be truly accountable to the people. Millions are being spent on this campaign that could be far better used for the people. A US oil firm posted the biggest profits in American history 46+ billion USD, and the price of oil and gasoline are soaring. I am amazed that the people are not out in the streets utilizing their power against such greed! I am also an EU citizen and returned to the States only 2 months ago. I am still deeply concerned about the SUVs that suck up huge amounts of gas. Where is there any responsibility for this? Wake up America. I lived much more social and environmental responsibility in Europe in many, many areas.
"We certainly have a horrible over-emphasis on the Imperial Presidency - I doubt most people in the UK know or care that Congress is likely to remain Democrat
controlled this year (with huge potential ramifications for whoever becomes president) and too often the US is characterised by the sitting president (BUSH
! Warmongers CLINTON ! philanderers, etc) but on the other hand presidents do matter. Don't they?"
Yes, I agree largely with your assessment of Sam's concerns. Of course presidents and prime ministers in all countries do, and should matter, because after all they are the head of the current government-not the contry or its people per say-but the current government who in the mean time makes decisions on, largely foreign policy issues. And these decisions in particular largely have, and continue to shape America's image abroad, just as they do for the UK, Canada, and every other country around the world.
And while I'm not completely sure what percentage of people in the UK know what about American politics, I do believe what you say regarding it, and think it noble of you to suggest that perhaps foreigners view us in a bit of an unfair light. Yes I agree that way to much, when a foreigner hears the expression "America thinks, or the Americans are furious with such & such a country for such & such (an) action(s)", too offten they aassume that "America" means all Americans, or indeed all American politicions, and not what it truely means, which is the US president. Just as iI'm sure the same holds true for Americans and other countries, although of course this image impacts us, and the whole world much more than other countries do them, because of the unfair balance of power in it, and the burden we must bare, as the world's current super power, make some attempt at makeing everyone somewhat happy-or at least that's what Democrats desire anyway.
Conversly, I'm not sure that many Americans know how politics in the UK work, with respect to how they elect a prime minister, and who the leaders of the opposition parties are there. So while it may be true that they don't know that even if a Republican wins the white house, Democrats will controll the congress, the same, I'm sure, can be said for us knowing that the Conservitives are the largest opposition party to Labor in the UK etc. So I guess that ignorance,it can be argued, doesn't all just boyal down to Americans after all. Although I certainly hope, even if they (UK citizens) don't know, they do care, because its been a historically proven fact, (Regan aside), that Democrats have made both their prime minister's, and the world's leader's lives easier hat Republicans (both in the white house and congress).
Because our system is unique most people living under a parliamentary system have no idea how limited the presidential powers actually are.
In your system the prime minister actually controls much more. Adding to the confusion are the powers granted to each US state. Comprehension of how the US system works is foggy at best for most overseas and often to those living in the US as well.
thanks for posting the link to the video and for pointing out that the woman answering the phone is fully dressed, etc... I would like to know why it took 4 rings for someone to answer the phone in the White House... in my office people would get fired in the phone was not answered by the 3rd ring and we're certainly not doing anything as important as "running" the country.
In most ways NO, I don't believe presidents do matter. They have a role to play as the "face" of democracy but the real power lies with the people behind the scenes, multinational corporations which are often richer than entire countries. As so many of these companies are US-based it follows that their influence in US politics is particularly strong, afterall, business has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo if it's working in its own interest. A radical/reformist candidate whose policies would benefit the general population rather than the business elite has no chance of being elected when money plays such a huge role in presidential campaigns. Why would businesses sponsor someone who's policies are going to harm them? So, the presidential candidates remain the same group of wealthy elites who, once elected, pander to the needs of the businesses who sponsor them rather than the people who voted for them. Many policies which a majority of the public support such as free public healthcare and decreased military spending aren't even on the agenda as they're detrimental to businesses (namely private health insurers and arms manufacturers). Republican, Democrat,whoever, you'll never get real change, it's just a case of same lies, different face. You may as well vote for whoever's the most attractive, at least you'll have something nice to look at while you're being lied to and your taxes are being increased to pay for a war that you never wanted against an enemy who doesn't exist.
"It's 3.00 AM, and your children are safe asleep..."
Oh. My. Word. It's like a low-budget horror film, about as subtle as an ice-pick and twice as cold. And she approved it! What does that tell us about her campaign? Is she looking to give her detractors fresh ammo?
In recent weeks there has been much statement by some candidates, for president of the United States that they are " ready and able to be Commander in Chief of the United States".
We are not voting in a commander in chief but a president. A head of the executive department of our federal government. His powers are not those of a commander in chief, or king, but only those granted by the constitution and congress, and defined by the supreme court.
The current president and his administration has assumed powers under a so-called emergency that are not constitutionally his. He should be called to account for this behavior.
In the US, the President certainly can affect what happens; in Great Britain the Prime Minister can affect what happens. So it does matter who has the job. But the basic underlying assumptions of both foreign and domestic policy in the USA have been unchanged for many years and several Presidencies. So at least in the US, there are very strong constraints on how much change of any sort a President can cause. Given that, saying that the President of the US "runs the country" is analogous to saying that the locomotive driver of a railway train "runs the train". Yes, in a sense he does; he can slow down, speed up, watch the signals and take account of them. But he cannot cause the train to go in some arbitrary direction across the countryside.
"I doubt most people in the UK know or care that Congress is likely to remain Democrat controlled this year."
The Democrats in Congress don't seem to know or care that they have majority Democratic control of Congressional responsibility or power over purse, subpoena, oversight and even impeachment authority. The Democratic Senate can't even summon the authority to compel or await an Attorney General nominee able to name torture, "torture".
Congress by design is the power of the Federal Government. Congress dictates the course the Government is to take, or is supposed to, that's their responsibility.
Yet, the President is the Chief Executive, it flat out undeniably runs the Governemnt.
Congress' seven year long, and the Democratic Majority's almost two year long, unwillingness, inability whether of cowardice, incompetence or complicity, to live up to it's Constitutional responsibilities and authority have broken a systme predicated on the checks and balances of three active and potent branches.
Bush inherited an Imperial Presidency built by Nixon and Reagan and for the last seven years has accrued to himself all Governmental powers except that of taxation, and rubber stamping of the Budget. The President even submits the Budget for Congress to pass. The rise of "signing" statements and now the exclusion of the Senate from involvement of treaty obligations make the US Government increasingly a one branch government. The Executive branch, especially the Chief Executive as Bush and his Justice Department have defined and entrenched it through action and precedent, now have near total and sole claim to running the Government of the United States.
It may be arguable that the United States Government doesn't run the country exclusively but it certainly has the heaviest hand on the wheel, and while the President as Chief Executive doesn't yet exclusively, s/he nearly exclusively does run the Government of the United States and that person can easily run the United States into the ground.
The only people in the US trying to dismiss the overwhelming raw power that's accrued to the Executive Branch seems to be the "what me worry" Obama campaign. Experience or preparedness are not an issue since the Presidency is not such a big deal, it's the Big Idea factory of the US Federal Government after all, um, not. The Presidency of the United States is not some toy or quaint anachronism of an implied "post-government" era. The Presidency of the United States is an epic monstrosity.
Dear Mr Webb: Indeed, in the USA, presidents matter a great deal. They wield a lot of power, especially since the early thirties and FDR's long tenure.
But, in the end, their true power rests in their ability to provide moral leadership, their trustworthiness, their clarity of vision, their ability to persuade the citizenry to demand right behavior from the legislative branch of Government. Witness the success of Eisenhower and Reagan, and the abject failure of Johnson and Clinton. Jimmy Carter attempted the task, but simply was not competent for the office, and the country came very close to falling apart.
Excellent work! i always enjoy reading your thoughts.
Very poorly edited ad. This is how it happens. Someone like me answers a phone (various types of phones) and then I gather a small desk side briefing package printed on paper and quickly put the product into a logical order that someone trying to wake up will have to ingest. I have to understand that I am going to wake up someone very important with a million problems on the brain and that the brief I will give will be taken in by someone who will need as much information I can give in 10 minutes or less and that a few sheets of paper with maps and photos will have to do for now. I will have to be the subject matter expert at the moment and the gather of questions to get answered as soon as humanly possible with the assistance of technology and an army of other people like me. The important leader I wake up will gather in everything he or she gets from my products and words, glues that with any other pieces of information from previous meetings on the given crisis (potential crisis in the past briefings), and then tell me which batteries of other leaders (to include leaders in other governments) to notify and which crisis action teams leaders to call in for another full briefing within the hour. I also set up a call with the on scene commander or local watch officer. The next person that will sleep in that bedroom in D.C. will have to be able to relate to people like me and hundreds of thousands of people like me. Now, my gut feeling and chance meetings or dealings with the two candidates is that they (the two democratic candidates) do not have the type of crisis decision making skill sets needed to get through the night I just described. That is not too surprising as most political candidates that have that type of experience were either governors, mayors, or military veterans. Not a problem. One has a staff full of people that have similar crisis management / action experience. Unfortunately for our two Democratic contenders their current and future slated staffs (save for possibly a few retired Flag Officers and a smattering of decorated Vietnam era veteran NCOs) do not have these people and their attitudes combined with their limited past political decisions have alienated them from a source pool of experience-hardened talent. These two might inspire and have the ability to make decisions but it is ironic that the way they are mapping their road to political power is drawing them to the same mistakes that have the pundits screaming for the current administration's collective heads. Thank you for allowing me to give my voice to the chorus of armchair commentators.
I have a different issue with the "red phone" Clinton ad and her comments about her experience since : if , as she claims, being the first lady gave her real presidential experience, if she really was "involved in a lot of decisions that were made", she's basically claiming that being first lady is a de facto cabinet position; does that not raise a serious constitutional issue concerning Bill Clinton ?
Is it constitutionally acceptable for a president that has already served 2 terms to be able to rejoin the white house cabinet ?
She can't have it both ways: either being "first spouse" is a purely cerimonial role and then there is no constitutional issue with her husband but then she can claim no white house "presidential" experience or it is a decision making role, in which case her husband raises a serious constitutional problem.
Am i correct in my understanding of the2 term limit for presidents ? Would it be constitutional for a former (2 term) president to become , say, national security advisor ?
Mr Davis is quite right, the idea that a president "runs" a country is an oversimplification. At the same time, it is noteworthy that he does not suggest an alternative. This is because whatever alternative he proposes will also be an oversimplification.
The fact is that language works by oversimplifying. If we want to flesh out our oversimplified descriptions and make them more accurate, we have to add further descriptions to qualify them. But that makes our descriptions longer. If we wanted to make a fully accurate description of the relation between a president and the country (s)he represents ("representation" is another oversimplification, as is "country"), we would have to write a book. In the case of the 主播大秀, it would never reach the end of a news bulletin.
So oversimplifications are inevitable. At the same time, the dangers Mr Davis points out are real. They can only be dealt with by publishing further articles, news items, documentaries and letters (such as his) that flesh out our descriptions to make them more accurate. It seems to me that the 主播大秀 often does this. Perhaps it could do more, but what it cannot do is eliminate oversimplifications.
Presidents matter. Bush has amply proven that the President can all too easily cause great harm, but that accomplishing something good is rarely done, and only with enormous difficulty. That said, the general prosperity of the US may be even more important than the President, because that prosperity has created a complacency that any candidate must respect in word and eventual deed. And that is why nothing ever changes in the US as Presidents come and go. Maybe when the current impostor leaves, we can hope for better.
i agree completely.
i would further it by adding the following. the use of the name of a country as if it were a single actor is also distorting:
"the usa did X while china reacted by doing Y"
are you seriously suggesting 300,000,000 people or 1,000,000,000 people all got up and did something together at once?
lets face it- we are always referring to the interface of a government with regards to the press.
Mr. Davis is correct, in my view. The issue is not whether presidents matter--of course they do. I think that the biggest casualty of this sort of oversimplificaton is that it shifts the responsibility for governance from the citizenry to the elected leadership. For a democracy to work, citizenship must be exercised more frequently than every four years.
Yes, Presidents DO matter but Sam is right. I have had to explain to my french students one too many times that there is not only a large NATIONAL government that the president has to work though but also the state governments. too many times the entire country gets lumped because of the president's unwillingness to make mandates to his people when, in reality, he does not have the power to.
Also, the media portrayal of events and people has a great effect on the psyche of a country. I can only assume that it is some of the media's fault that my stateside family keeps writing about the "horribleness" of Clinton and the glory of Obama. When, as an outsider, I seem them to be quite similar. Just a thought.
Interesting point about who runs a country, but it can be applied more widley. Does Richard Branson 'run' Virgin or Steve Jobs 'run' Apple in that direct a sense?
Like the 'great man' theory of history too much focus at the hand on the tiller can easily obscure what is going on whilst ignoring the complex interplay of forces around any organisation.
On the other hand we also shouldn't underestimate the importance of Prime Ministers and Presidents either. A good example is the current situation in the UK - Gordon Browm has replaced Tony Blair without an election, so most of parliament is still the same but the governmnet is suprisingly differnt. A more cabinet style seems in evidence and enough of Blairs programmes have been abandoned or changed and there is even some genuinley left wing legislation in the offing!
The person at the top may not actually run things, but they do tell the people who do which direction to set them running.
Justin,
Sam Davis and your good self have a point.
It doesn't seem to matter whom we elect, or how committed they are to doing what they see to be right, the major influence in government is not the individuals at its head but the machinery and personalities beneath.
Having served for 7 years as a local government officer, I have seen at first hand how councils and committees can be manipulated to give their officers the decision those officials want.
I suspect it is no different in Whitehall either. The officials' option, the untenable option and a political compromise. If the politicians won't compromise themselves, then the officials win. If they do compromise themselves, the media tear them to pieces, resignations may well follow and the officials get their way with the new faces.
In the USA the political appointees reach much further down the ladder than in the UK - meaning that the wish of the elected leaders has more chance of being implemented rather than obstructed. It is perhaps a lack of understanding of this that may have led the Blair cabinet to accept the assertions on WMD - because the interface at senior official level was between US political appointees, spreading the thoughts of Bush/Rumsfeldt, and UK career civil servants not recognising what they were being told had already been 'sexed up'.
It is scarcely recognised that the elected take decisions based on what is put before them by the appointed. Thus if a minister is simply not told (economy with the truth) then the political decision may well be based on flawed judgement.
QV the recent case involving the Speaker of the House of Commons, where his spokesman very honourably resigned because he had promulgated a falsehood based on some other official's deceit.
In parallel, one of course has to wonder how much the Treasury policy on PPP and PFI, railways, etc., etc. is influenced by civil servants who in turn are more than influenced by the bankers, lawyers and entrepreneurs in the City....
It is perhaps time that access to government officials, both local and national, was controlled, either through some form of register which has to be disclosed to the elected appointees (publicly?), or by a strict set of rules - which if broken result in an automatic sideways and downwards move. Not an honour and graceful retirement for those guilty of such errors of judgement.
We talk about the register of MP's interests - but how about the out-of-hours activities of those whose advice influences major political decisions?
An example might be found in the actions (or rather inactions) of the National Audit Office whose retiring chief was a great afficionado of travel, entertainment and thereby potential external influence.
You are both right - it is high time we examined who really runs our countries. And made sure they only act in accordance with best principles.
Mr Davis has a point.
I'd suggest Mr Webb, that you look up "Dolschstosslegende" ( Wikipedia has it), and GOP consultant Frank Luntz who's expertise is quite literally and unabashedly in "Newspeak"--if you are interested.
Also consider the impact and longevity of the Bush administration's Saddam/9-11 link claim and its usefulness.
You will see from these that words have power, we use them to define or world and understand it. When words are changed in defintion and meaning, especially by 'authorities' then the consequences can be significant.
Shakespeare enriched the English language by creating hundreds of new words and memorable expressions. 99% of everything Bush has said has been the exact opposite of everything he has ever done--yet he made it to a second term. Words contain ideas and knowledge and travel easily. The wrong word at the "right' time affects us all.
I don't think any one person can run a county, not even in Africa where we have supreme power vested in the executive president. That is exactly the reason why i just don't understand this notion of Mr. Obama being short on specifics, because whatsoever they say now are subject to a lot of changes later on, depending on the prevailing realities at that time. Besides, that is exactly why they appoint different people as ministers, or in their case, secretaries with expertise in the different areas of governance to execute the functions of those areas.
What Mr. Obama will do is give that new, fresh, and invigorated approach to everything American, and the people will then take things in their strides and forge ahead with a renewed sense of self-belief. That is why we need an Inspirational leader as the president of America.
I think the present U.S. administration has established the president can "run" a country into the ground at least. All sniping aside however, I wish my own country of Canada had as fine a balance of powers as America. A parlimentary system amounts to little more than electing a king once every four years.
this is a deeply important point. presidents do not -run- countries unless suddenly we're living in an autocracy. this is one reason i reject the american political rhetoric that such-and-such president is "steward" of the economy. this is not yet a socialist country - though we humans seem unable to stop longing for a tribal chief.
He's 100% right, and you're on the way to having a deeper understanding of the US. No one person, especially not the president, runs the country. The heart of the US government is Congress, but even their power is limited. The truth is that all 300 million Americans are steering the ship--there is no captain. That's a scary thought for many people to comprehend, but once you accept it, the possibilities are invigorating.
Something that the president does do is set the tone.
The president cannot control a huge swathe of policy but he is head of the party he does come from so in effect if a democrat was elected to the white house it wouldn't neccessarily be over-egging to say that the president is running the country.
Surely another thing to note is that how much one president leads is down to how much the president captures the public, so Obama may be seen to have a larger mandate than Clinton or McCain.
Excellent comment by Mr Davis. The implication of somebody running a country is that the country is dependent more on its government than it is of the individuals who make up that country. It implies government is right to take away personal or economic liberty, and does not entertain the possibility that on a given issue government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.
Is this another example of what Andrew Marr described as the "cultural liberal bias" of the 主播大秀?
When an issue is being discussed in the news the issue is almost always adressed from the position of what can government can do. Not what people could do, or that it may be benificial for government to do or spend less.
I've come to the belief that the less they matter, the better off we are.
I notice that whenever the country is in trouble, the opposition blames the president and the supporters say "the president can't do much anyway." Whenever the country is doing well, it's the other way around.
He's right though. Our constitution lists the Legislative Branch as the first branch of government. It is supposed to be the most important branch, but thanks to the rise to prominence of the neocons in American politics today, Bush was able to reign virtually unchecked.
I recently read an article in Newsweek about the reality of the presidency, and how all of the talk about "Change" usually ends up all for naught, and how presidencies are much more defined by emergency situations. Lets say, hypothetically, that there was a country that decided to attack Israel. I'd certainly like to know how the presidential nominees would react to such a situation.
I like Sam Davis's comments, particularly as I had never stopped to think about that specific phrase.
The follow-on problem is how we linguistically attach responsibility to our leaders if we remove the simple "running the country" remark.
The agreement between electorates and Government is two-fold - firstly the Government needs to run and organise the government efficiently and secondly we expect them to find and fix historic problems and make improvements.
It is this second role - where it would be difficult to get common agreement on the scope of their responsibility (largely due to politics between rival parties) - and I suppose this is why the Media resort to the lazy language of "running the country".
Well, it has 'always' gone on.
That is, if you read your history books, you will see that apparently Henry VIII 'built' such and such a castle, or further back that a Pharoah 'built' a Pyramid.
What the chronicallers mean, is that this person provides a convienent and easy to identify focal point.
One of Justins journalist colleagues has already stated that whoever is the next POTUS, in reality, it will really be more of a change-of-face, rather than anything else.
Which is probably all you can expect in a democracy.
It takes dictators to REALLY change things - not that I am advocating that, I hasten to add.
Nevertheless, the next POTUS, if Obama, really could change perceptions of America for the better, looking from the outside in.
Wow, he says that well. The issues we hear in the US that are being touted about have no bearing on the president. Health care, war funding,taxes and spending are generally proposed through the House and Senate,...the same offices the three top runners now occupy. Though the President may put proposals and requests to the Senate or House for a vote, the power of presidency is in defense and economy, thus the title of Commander n' Chief.
Yes, Mr. Webb, presidents do matter. But it would be really, really helpful if 主播大秀 viewers were made slightly more aware of the realities of government. Of course most people in the UK don't know that Congress is and probably will remain Democrat controlled because the 主播大秀 won't inform them.
I realize it's easier to let everyone think that the US is run like a dictatorship, but when the man in charge is demonized like the way the 主播大秀 speaks of Bush, you're just scaring your own viewers, and preventing them from understanding the issues on which you are supposed to be informing them. Perhaps if the average viewer was made aware that the Legislative Branch does not act at the whim of the Executive, they would be less likely to fall for extremist arguments.
Conversely, portraying a potential Democrat President as a savior, or, at the very least, a relief from what your colleagues call the "grim last eight years", you are deceiving your viewers in the opposite direction. It's not your own coverage so much as that of your colleagues in 主播大秀 World News, but overall the 主播大秀 seems to be misleading its viewers into thinking that a Democrat must win in order to free the world of...well...you know.
This line of thought extends to the British PM and Parliament as well, obviously.
quite frankly apart from running the military and deciding foreign policy, i dont see what is the purpose of a federal government when u have individual bodies of governments like states making their own laws. the president is important but sometimes i feel his importance is over played.
MOst of what a presient gets blamed for, he has very little control over.
for example : fiscal policy. increasing crime rates,high school drop out rates etc. these thigns fall under independent bodies of government and state level government.
Feds sometimes pass laws or policies but individual states have the room to implement them how they choose and often when they choose, but if the policy is seen as a failure the blame falls on the president even though he may have had little to do with the passing of the law or policy or the intent of the law itself may have never been carried out.
#17: John Kecsmar: While I do agree that our media does embellish far too much, I don't think its necessarily tru, as your post suggest, that foreign media doesn't do it (to some extent at least) as well.
And when you said, "You wouldn鈥檛 get J.Paxman doing this, he just wants the facts and doesn鈥檛 care about image." If my memmory serves me correctly (this man being the 主播大秀 journalist who's vidio of him interviewing Blair appeared in this blog back in December), then thats true, he would rather just insult, belittle, put down, and scold his interviewees until they tell him what he wants to hear, or rather just quit the interview altogether. I think there is a happy medium between being a harsh, fact finding journalist, and doing it in a kind effective manor. I think US journalists aren't harsh enough and don't ask enough tough questions, while UK ones can (at times) just be downright mean and therefore make their interviewees not want to participate at all.
Sam Davis is right to point out that no president 'runs' their country wholesale - but lumping all Presidents, Prime Ministers and other heads of state together is just as misleading.
President Mugabe clearly runs Zimbabwe more directly than President Bush runs America - albeit in to the ground.
As a Brit living in New York I've been surprised by how much control the US President can exert - particularly in key areas of intelligence and the judiciary - and overall how much less collegial the government is. President Bush can more accurately claim to 'run' America than Gordon Brown can claim to run Britain.
Ultimately I agree that the usage is technically inaccurate but such linguistic fuzziness is used daily in all walks of life. I can't bring myself to buy the slippery-slope argument that such journalistic short-hands will lead us all down the road to dictatorship.
The problem we have in Western Democracies is that the democracy is upside down. What happens at the moment. Money/Central banks control the Politicians and the politicians control the people. What should be the case is. The people control the Politicians and the Politicians Control the Central Banks on behalf of the people. Not only does the present system fail it encourages political corruption. The people need to take back from the Banks the right to rule the country.
I agree with Mr. Davis with some qualification. The president does weld considerable power in the USA. Did Clinton require congressional approval to bomb Serbia into submission? Did Bush REQUIRE congressional approval to invade Iraq? The president's true power comes from the public. With a strong public mandate, a president may weld considerable power. With a strong mandate, elected members of congress will quickly bow to presidential demands. See gulf war II, for example. I think the ability of the media to foster ill-informed public mandates presents a much greater danger than the almost subliminal insertion of terms like "run the country."
On the same day I read your post, I saw that the University of Rochester has posted some of its Abraham Lincoln papers on the web. Check out this endorsement of Mr. Lincoln for a second term and decide whether he was leading the country One thing I noticed in this endorsement is that, unlike today's Democrats who are running all over each other to stake the claim to the earliest withdrawal from Iraq (which I personally wish would happen tomorrow), Mr. Lincoln said if you're looking for someone who will promise you that the war will be over on a date certain, don't look to me.
The American political system is intentionally designed so that no one is completely in charge. By creating a procedurally focused system, we have essentially created a pro-status quo bias. This is unlike parilamentary systems, where change in government can mean fairly dramatic change in policy in a short period of time.
The fact that Congress is likely to remain in Democratic control is important for people to be aware of because of the way that the executive and legislative branches interact. When the President is of the same party that controls congress, the President acts more like a prime minister and has the power to make the kind of changes that Bush made throughout most of his Presidency. When the President is not of the same party as the majority of Congress, the separation of powers and the checks and balances become much more significant and neither the President nor Congress has very much power.
Who runs the country? I'll tell you.
My mom from her kitchen phone. That's who. She makes me wash the dishes, checks my homework, sticks the casserole in the oven, open the refrigerator with her foot, while still on the phone,warms up my baby brother's formula in the microwave, makes Dr appointments, calls the bank to complain about charges and still has the time to tell me thank you! Youdid did a super job getting those dishes done for me.
Sam makes several interesting points but one aspect of this issue is: no-one outside the US realises how marginal the influence of the president actually is to Americans. Not only is Congress at least as important, but tehre is the Judiciary to contend with at Federal level. Then we have to remember that the real government is done at state level. States are like separate countries in most respects and only foreign policy and the military are controlled at Federal level. That is why, as foreigners, we think that the Federal government and the president are so important.
To Americans the presidential campaign is a cabaret - lots of fun, good entertainment, but not very significant. That is why the turnout is usually so low. It may be higher this time. Bush Jr has shown them that foreign opinion of them is more important than they had thought.
"The groundwork for greater intervention in the economy and indiviual lives" - not to mention in other countries lives - was laid long ago. Madison and Hamilton and most of the other founders took a pretty dim view of popular democracy from below in practice, regardless of some of their more showy idealistic public pronouncements. As Madison once described it with a little more private candor, "democracy is the most vile form of government...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property" and "Landholders ought to have a share in the government to suppoert these invaluable interests... to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." This aim of government, to serve power and property hasn't changed much over the centuries, even though the means of achieving it has with the rise of mass media and public relations. The economy too, has changed greatly since then and today there are more pronounced class divisions in American society and the world and a more extreme concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the "opulent minority". It is this narrow class that "runs the country" and the president is their public face, there to maintain public order and foster a favorable investment enviornment. So it may be a "distortion" to say the president single-handedly "runs the country" but only insofar as it omits the other members of the "opulent minority", public and private (who often shuttle back and forth between poitions of public and private power). The corporate press of course plays its supporting role so its not a misstatement when they routinely unquestioningly assert that the president is running the country - and by extension the other priveleged elites who put him in power. What's interesting is the reaction of those among the "public at large" (i.e. those gritty working folks) who feel understandably aggrieved at such a notion. But they needn't be surprised, once it becomes apparent that America is not a democracy at all but what is academically termed a "polyarchy". In his illuminating book, Promoting Polyarchy, Wm. Robinson succintly defines polyarchy as "a system in which a small group actually rules and mass participation in decision-making is confined to leadership choice in elections carefully managed by competing elites". And when the sham elections are over, the "imperial president" and the "opulent minority" RUN THE COUNTRY! (and the world).