The Problem Is Bigger Than Trump And Obama: Should The One-Man Presidency Be Abolished?

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Justin Gardner via The Free Thought Project,

There was something very revealing about Charlottesville and its aftermath. Not the behavior of the president, or the disturbing resiliency of Nazism, or the willingness of some counter-protesters to initiate violence. We saw how the repugnant actions of a very tiny percentage of people can be manufactured into an all-encompassing narrative – while the corporatocracy continues fleecing America.

With his (perhaps intentional) bungled response to Charlottesville, President Trump propelled race onto center-stage, as corporate media piled on to cash in on Trump controversy. Race issues should undoubtedly be part of the national discourse, but Trump and the MSM are using Charlottesville in a manner nothing short of ‘divide and conquer.’

This demonstrates one of the main reasons why the U.S. presidency should be abolished.

Having a president is a prime driving force in the devolution of debate. Complexity is boiled away, leaving cartoonish characterizations promoted by cable TV personalities armed with clichés and the day’s talking points.

With a president, emotions are channeled into supporting or opposing the words of one person.

Rationality is completely overshadowed by fear-based fallacies and the tendency toward violence. Middle ground continually disappears, growing a dichotomous world of fawning followers and rabid dissenters – regardless of which of the two parties is in power.

A president makes it easy to produce ‘fast food’ news, irresistible to short attention spans and poisonous to the system. Every four years, two people are made to represent the myth of ‘liberal vs. conservative,’ directing everyone’s energy into straw man issues. There is no room for nuance, let alone building a rational case on an issue of importance.

If you are against candidate X, then you must be a [insert buzzword] who follows candidate Y. So goes the narrative. And every four years the corporatocracy celebrates another win.

A president makes it easy to distract the masses with issues that have nothing to do with how government actually spends your money (besides Confederate statues, of course). Trump does it, Obama did it, Bush did it, and so on.

Under this framework, people are easily labeled and put into neat boxes to be used for cable TV talking heads. Sound bites from shouting matches have replaced well-informed essays. The president makes all of this easy, because he or she is willing to represent one side of the fictional debate.

Much of what is fed to the voting populace is essentially fake, but the power of the president has never been greater – especially since 9/11. The person who gets into the Oval Office has immense power to shape the federal bureaucracy to his or her will.

If “democracy” means the 51% winner of a years-long celebrity showdown gets to impose his or her will on 323 million people, it’s time to think of a better system.

Every candidate claims to be working on behalf of the people, but every president in reality is paying back the relative few who helped put him in power, while strengthening the centralized State in his own fashion. Trump is pumping up the police state with his “law and order” crusade, just as Obama vastly expanded the surveillance state.

What real function does the president serve, anyway?

For many, the first thought is “commander in chief.” But nothing prevents a representative body from selecting a commander in times of war (which really isn’t necessary in an enlightened society). The president is really there to convince Americans to ‘rally round the flag’ when the military-industrial complex wants another armed conflict. The president greases the wheels of American hegemony and economic sabotage.

Now, with the help of such things as the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force – given to the executive in the wake of 9/11 – the president can bomb and invade countries at will. A single person can decide to invade Iraq, drone bomb kids in Pakistan, or drop nuclear bombs on North Korea.

Picking a Supreme Court judge? Who says a judiciary panel of representatives can’t select someone? Instead of multiple voices from different parts of the country debating over the best pick, a single person called the president is free to pick someone far more interested in ideology than rationality.

This is not a defense of the current legislative and judicial bodies. The executive branch is the focus here. Instead of serving useful functions, presidents serve as lightning rods for creating a false narrative.

And while they’re at it, presidents live a lifestyle that monarchs would envy – costing taxpayers untold billions.

As Ryan McMaken pointed out in February:

“Just last month, the taxpayers were forced to pay more than 100 million dollars to throw an immense party for the new president so he could be honored with fanfare and solemn ceremonies that would have made the Caesars envious.

 

As the head of this huge unitary executive, Presidents can command a huge national audience and face no opposition from any peer. They hand our awards to their friends, enjoy sumptuous food at state dinners, travel in luxury on Air Force One — at great cost to the taxpayer — and shut down entire highways and city blocks wherever they choose to go.”

McMaken, who argues that the Founding Fathers “were not nearly as insightful as is often pretended,” provides an interesting analysis of what they had to say at the Constitutional Convention.

Alexander Hamilton, in pushing for a strong executive branch, cited the need for “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch.” Hamilton would be overjoyed today, as the presidency now exerts inordinate amounts of activity and secrecy.

Not everyone was fooled at the Convention, including George Mason who correctly noted:

“If strong and extensive powers are vested in the executive, and that executive consists only of one person, the government will of course degenerate (for I will call if degeneracy) into a monarchy – a government contrary to the genius of the people that they will reject even the appearance of it.”

Mason was not insightful in his prediction that people would resist the slide to an executive branch with monarchic powers. Now, we see more polarization than ever – centered on the president – and more people saying they would support the president no matter what he does.

The pestilence of presidential politics is growing, and it’s creeping more and more into Congressional races – choking out debate about local issues in favor of divisive sound bites about allegiance to or resistance to the sitting president. Thus it serves the purpose of sustaining central authority.

Decentralization is needed now more than ever, especially considering the size of the U.S. in terms of landmass and population. Perhaps we should study whether Canada’s system of provinces offers more regional autonomy than U.S. federalism.

Different parts of the country have different ideas about doing things; one person called the president will never come close to getting everyone to agree. Isn’t it uncanny how, despite decades of U.S. presidents who profess a desire to “mend the nation,” America seems more polarized than ever?

Things are not getting better. Having a president is only making it easier for centralized power structures – represented by many factions including the Federal Reserve – to cement control over people’s lives and their economies.

McMaken proposes to break the executive branch into several administrators, which is the way most states govern. It’s difficult to fathom any solution to the situation as long as corrupt money rules politics.

If things are bad now in terms of presidential power and false narratives, there’s one thing that would drive American over the proverbial cliff. A terrorist attack the likes of 9/11, regardless of the potentially questionable circumstances, would sweep away any remaining opposition to virtual dictatorship.

Before that happens, let’s abolish the presidency.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
IridiumRebel's picture

So an oligarchy?....

Mr. Universe's picture

How about a Corporatocracy? That ought to do it.

SmackDaddy's picture

Will there be an Inquisition? A crusade? How about a good old fashioned pogrom?

Brazen Heist's picture

There needs to be a crusade, followed by an inquisition and finally a pogrom in DC.

moimeme's picture

A baby step first: let's get rid of Foreign "Aid," IsraHell is sucking America dry. http://wp.me/p4OZ4v-7x

sincerely_yours's picture

2nd step: Ban the Israeli lobby AIPAC from bribing our politicians. That would stop all the Middle East wars and all their consequences, like budget deficit, hate around the world, terrorism, dead soldiers, dead civilians, countries in ruin, etc.

Drop-Hammer's picture

Zactly.  Rid the U.S. of jews and their mud minions.  90% of our problems solved.  The Founding Fathers meant for the U.S. to be populated by YT's/those of European extraction.  Never the mud races.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

>The Founding Fathers meant for the U.S. to be populated by YT's/those of European extraction

It's right there in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States:

"...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

"Ourselves" in 1792 = Almost entirely composed of British, Scottish, Irish, and Germans. So let's be 100% clear: the United States of America was founded by, and for, White Nationalists.

As far as black people went, they were Constitutionally defined as 3/5 of a white person.

wildbad's picture

this is one of the main programs of the technocrats.

replace the presidency with a "board". they additionally want to place lawmaking under the aegis of the supreme court.

and that senate thingy should be abolished completely.

read Patrick Wood's "Technocracy Rising"

eforce's picture

Monarchy is the natural state of affairs, nations no matter how far they try to run from it will eventually revert back to it, it was said over 100 years ago in The Protocols this would happen.

Kidbuck's picture

Primitive tribalism is even more "natural". Would anyone not argue that the left now embraces the law of the jungle rather than the laws of the Republic?

Kidbuck's picture

For the educated, intelligent, and articulate bunch that they were, the Founders would have said the Republic was founded for whites if they had meant for whites. Anyone today that identifies first and foremost as white is a moron attempting to attach himself to the coat tails of white men who accomplished great things, while ignoring all the stupid and evil other white men have done and all the good and intelligent things individuals of other races have done.

DWD-MOVIE's picture

I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do… http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jobproplan.com%3A68UoF1LgzM-Yo3S...

ClickNLook's picture

History goes in spirals, so: yes. To all three.

GUS100CORRINA's picture

The Problem Is Bigger Than Trump And Obama: Should The One-Man Presidency Be Abolished?

My response: The one-man presidency should NOT be abolished. 

The PROBLEM we have in America is that America has abandoned GOD and America has, for the most part, thrown the LORD Jesus Christ under the BUS!

Until we rectifiy this issue, the nation will continue to face tribulation from time to time.

Isaiah 33:22 (NIV)

For the Lord is our judge,

    the Lord is our lawgiver,

the Lord is our king;

    it is he who will save us.

Common_Law's picture

At least they mentioned decentralization.(in name only definitely not in spirit).

To me it reads more like misdirection or propaganda because there are so many more yuge existential problems. Imo

New owners?

PT's picture

Need to tame the banksters, the Main Stream Media and the MIC.  If the President can not tame those three beasts then it needs to be done from the outside.  If Trump was trying to make lasting, meaningful improvements, then perhaps by going for the Presidency he was aiming too low?

Koba the Dread's picture

The Romans threw Jesus under a bus, not the Americans.

Kidbuck's picture

To be logically consistent Jesus threw himself under the bus since true believers argue that he had supreme power over heaven and Earth and could create or control any event, either human or natural, that he desired.

moonshadow's picture

Good point...John 3:17 (the rest of that famous, oft-seen, verse, the part we never read)

esum's picture

PLUS
There are 3 branches to government and the problem is that the government is no longer responsive to the PEOPLE, rather to the lobbyists, and focused on STEALING FROM THE TAXPAYER....
Income tax went from 3% to whatever bracket o you are in,,,, theft
The value of the dollar was eroded again THEFT...
Get rid of the FED.
TERM LIMITS
NO LOBBYING AFTER OFFICE
Independent audits of ALL GOVT CONTRACTS
NO LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH... major problem
TERM LIMITS FOR JUDGES
Unfortunately without WAR the US economy goes into depression

uhland62's picture

It's already doing it, corporates behaving like the nobility of old. 

Questioning the system that served democracy so well, the precious model for all the world. If that catches on the world will go darker than under a solar eclipse. 

lil dirtball's picture

> corporates behaving like the nobility of old

They are the nobility of old. Quite literally.

http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html

SmackDaddy's picture

Show me where the old nobility invited third world subhumans into the kingdom

Proctologist's picture

My thought exactly.

The fact that the populace is dumbed down to a level where trumps tweets and corporatist MIC bullshit sells has nothing to do with it.../s

What a pile of dung article.

Chupacabra-322's picture

Fascism.

It's what's for breakfast.

SmackDaddy's picture

"the disturbing resiliency of Nazism" - have you seen pictures of 1930s Germany? It was fucking beautiful. Stop with the faggot-speak

TBT or not TBT's picture

Socialism with a genocide face. 

HRClinton's picture

No, a Co-Presidency. Not the Bush-Cheney variety.

The type with an AI, since Presidents increasingly seem to lack Natural Intelligence. 

The AI would data mine the population across the country, and know all kinds of facts, trends, attitudes, values, goals, etc. By Zip code and Demographics.

This would be made publicly available. Part of an Open Government. 

subversion's picture

Wait! One man is in control? Better let the president know this news.

SloMoe's picture

Five minute pizza delivery by drone, and I'm cool...

DogeCoin's picture

So now we should have two Consuls?

Brazen Heist's picture

The problem is you can't "vote" yourself out of this clusterfuck.

Dumbocracy is a foreground illusion meant to pacify the masses into submission, while a rogue Oligarchy runs amok in the background.

Nobody has ever "voted" themselves to freedom. That's Freedumb. Real freedom is won with blood, sweat and tears.

Sliced into ribbons's picture

But Trump said, "I alone can fix it." And plenty of retartds believed him.

HRClinton's picture

Hey, 'Muricans believe snake oil salesmen, Amway salesmen and their ilk, etc.

No one ever went broke by underestimating the stupidity and gullibility of the American public. 

Cluster_Frak's picture

We need one guy to wreck havoc.

Mzhen's picture

Justin Gardner is another in the line of utterly stupid people Tyler likes to bring in to offer an alternate point of view.  That said, there are some less utterly stupid people than Gardner.

samsara's picture

At least it serves to flesh out what you don't think is a good idea.

Sometimes you have to hear/think of a bad idea to cancel it off the list so to speak of things that should be done.

Koba the Dread's picture

Most people couldn't sort out a bad idea from a Twinkie.

samsara's picture

It would result in the same condition.

A group of people would end up being Pelosi, Graham, McCain, Waters, etc...

It wouldn't be the Ron Pauls, Tulsi Gabbards, etc

The trouble is the most qualified/knowledge, temperment, vision  for upper positions don't want to do it, 

The people who naturally gravitate to those types of positions are often psychopaths.

Look inside your own companies for examples

christiangustafson's picture

What an idiotic article.

Did I just waste two minutes of my life? 

Brazen Heist's picture

I just re-gained 2 minutes by watching your avatar.

az_patriot's picture

This article is such horseshit I won't even honor it with much thought.  So I'll just say "NO".

Rebelrebel7's picture

Here is a better idea, revert back to the constitution,  rather than saying well we fucked that up, nobody follows it, let's make it bigger!

Brazen Heist's picture

An even better idea that nobody on either side of the 2 party farce ever considers:

Scale down the fucking gubbermint!