The Democratic National Convention struck out hard at the current president. (Don't take that the wrong way; it's what these conventions do. "Elect our folks because their folks are bad for the country.") Apparently the current president is responsible for the deaths of more than 170,000 Americans apparently because he didn't prevent the COVID-19 virus from entering the country or something like that. If Hillary had been president, no one would have died ... right? (Again, I'm not casting this as "Trump vs Hillary" or anything of the sort. It's what politicians do.) Obama brought prosperity and Trump famine. They said that Obama and Biden brought overtime pay to more than 4 million workers. Well, no, they didn't. The rule never went into effect. "Ah," you say, "now you're demeaning Obama and Biden." No, not my point. All of this (and so much more) makes me wonder. What exactly is a president to do? Candidates make all sorts of claims and promises. "I'll put two chickens in every pot!" and the like. But can they? Should they? No!
We are a gullible bunch of voters. We listen to the wild claims from both sides and decide which wild claims we prefer and vote. We don't understand the nature of political advertising. (Did you know that political ads are exempt from "truth in advertising" laws? Political ads fall under "free speech" protection and the FCC does nothing about them.) We don't understand the government. Ours is an intentionally divided government -- "separation of powers" is the term. The executive branch can only do this and the legislative branch can only do that and then, of course, there is the judicial branch which is only supposed to keep the other two in line. Now, to our defense, it's understandable why we don't get that. When Iraq was trying to put together their new Constitution, comedian George Carlin quipped, "They can use ours. We're not using it." Funny, but true; we're not. So the president (most presidents, not just the current one) makes rules that the Constitution says he can't and the Congress fails to make the decisions the Constitution requires and the Supreme Court (all the judicial branch, actually) passes laws from the bench. It's not really that hard to see why we're confused.
So what is a president to do? He can make treaties ... with the approval of the Senate. (Not alone.) He can sign or veto bills ... approved by Congress. (Not alone.) He can act as Commander-in-Chief ... during a war declared by Congress. Things he can do without permission? He can make suggestions for new laws, grant pardons, appoint ambassadors, enforce laws passed by Congress, things like that. He can issue executive orders, but those are limited. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was such an order. But they must be constitutional. For instance, the Supreme Court overturned five of FDR's executive orders in 1935. Now, Biden, for instance, is promising to ban the ownership and manufacture of assault weapons. Mind you, we still don't have a firm definition of "assault weapons" and nothing in the Constitution allows for such a ban. Perhaps Congress could do it (theoretically), but not a president. (I say "theoretically" because it seems like Congress as a whole has a hard time accomplishing anything anymore.) Kamala Harris promised the same thing during her campaign -- comprehensive gun control by executive order. Is it constitutional? Who knows anymore?
Again, I'm' not pointing any fingers at any individuals, parties, or even positions. It is the nature of the beast for politicians to make promises ... that they can't keep. And we, like sheep, just follow along. "Well, I like what they're promising, so let's vote 'em in." What was the line from Top Gun? "Your ego is writing checks your body can't cash." Something like that. They're making promises they don't have the authority to deliver and we're angry when they don't. But who's at fault here? Maybe it's the sheep who are so easily deceived by the sheep's clothing?
16 comments:
I do agree that this notion that the President has the degree of control that people think they have is curious. Way too many people think that the president actually has the ability to keep most of the promises made while campaigning. I suspect that there is a element of being able to take a page from Truman as run against congress. "I tried to do these wonderful things, but congress wouldn't let me."
I'm thinking that if the office of POTUS actually had the power that most candidates try to say it does that we'd probably be unhappy giving POTUS that much control. While I think that most people applaud executive orders when they address something they agree with, the more things that get done via executive orders, is simply allowing an overreach that the constitution doesn't support.
It's interesting that the reality is that those in the congress probably have more opportunity and power to enact legislation that will make the sorts of changes that candidates promise. Which makes it strange to see long serving members of congress promise to change things as POTUS that they made little effort to change as a member of congress.
And yet another reason that I care less about voting for President. We all act like he's got this huge amount power, he's the "leader of the free world", so they say. But he can't really do much without the approval of the rest of government. People give so much credit or blame to our Presidents that they really had no effect on.
Being a good citizen in the country in which God placed you, representing Christ to the world around you by participating in the authority that God has established, that's all pointless? Our government was designed to decentralize it so as to avoid tyranny. You consider that a good reason to refuse to care about the responsibilities God places on us as citizens in this world?
By the way, the question was "What's a president to do?" and the answer was NOT, "Nothing." Just "Not as much as you might think."
Interesting thing. While Scripture is abundantly clear that all authority that is established is established by God, on multiple occasions God held Israel accountable for their choice of leadership. What can I conclude? 1) God establishes authorities, but He likes to use human means to do it. 2) God expects us to participate in that, from national leadership to church leadership selections. 3) God holds us accountable for our choices (or lack thereof) on leadership.
That's what it looks like to me.
Sounds like a reasonable conclusion. Which would seem to mean that God is in control no matter who we vote for.
I haven't not voted for a President yet, but every election I see fewer and fewer viable options or reasons to, and more and more reasons not to. I'm not saying I won't, I just struggle with bringing myself to participate. Neither candidate stands anywhere near my positions, and voting for anyone else is admittedly wasting my vote, not that I believe my vote matters in the first place (I live in a blue state). Presidents hold less power than we seem to give them credit for. Both parties are willing to lie and embellish to get my vote. I heard one of the speakers at the RNC say that the Democrats want to let MS13 move in next door to me. I might be inclined to agree that opening our border may lead to that, but that certainly isn't their goal. And the Democrats say just as inflammatory things. The whole process has become ridiculous and almost farcical. Will I vote? Probably. I know it won't matter if I do or don't. To say I'm trying to make a statement by voting third party is nonsense, since nobody is actually looking at that data or wondering if it might be time to change out of a two party system, as if this country is split evenly between red or blue. I don't believe there is any hope for this country from its politicians. Both sides are driving us to ruin, but that's because the People are ruined. No government of the people is going to get corrected from the top down. Only with a return to some semblance of morality do we hope to make America great again.
I certainly understand your feelings on the matter and even share them to a large degree. My personal feeling is that there is no one in this "representative government" that represents me. I am experiencing "taxation without representation," so to speak. There are two things that keep me participating in the process -- voting. One is that I believe it to be what God expects of His representatives here. That alone -- "Because I said so" -- is sufficient. But the other is that I don't believe effectual and significant participation in the process is defined by "I get what I want." I believe that God can use my vote for other purposes. He can use it to tell others, "There are people out there who trust God rather than government." He can use it to tell others, "Success at the polling place doesn't necessarily equate to success in government." He can use it to tell politicians, "There are a sizable number of people who don't like what we're offering and maybe we need to address that." He can use it for all sorts of things that don't look like "success" to most people when it comes to voting. In fact, I vote thinking, "I wonder what God is going to do with that seemingly insignificant speck of obedience. This ought to be good." In short, I vote because I should and trust God both for who gets in office and for what He uses my obedience for.
I'm sorry, but David's opinion suggests he's not really paying attention. It's a hard thing to do, particularly when one wishes to devote attention to God. But we are here for His purpose and that does mean taking part and THAT means paying attention. In doing so, I've learned that the notion that "both parties" are this or that is nonsensical. That's not to say the one I favor is anywhere near perfect, but it is nothing like the other in it's basic ideology and certainly not in what it seeks to accomplish on behalf of AMERICANS. Voter apathy is destructive and from a spiritual perspective, just what the father of lies ordered.
Stan's 12:32PM comment is as if I said it, but the two of us don't really agree on the application.
I'm not sure I consider David's concerns as apathy. I think it's closer to frustration and exhaustion. "I've been voting all these years and it appears to make not one single difference at all. They are STILL not providing me with a suitable option or someone who represents ME."
I'm in much the same boat as David in terms of the POTUS vote. I'm more frustrated by the continually lower quality of candidates from both parties. I live in a state that would likely vote Stalin, if he ran as the DFL candidate. Further, our state is really dominated electorally by one large metropolitan area which has way too many people who offered physical and moral support to rioters who destroyed large parts of the city. However, we are seeing a switch in some of the areas which have traditionally voted blue (because the blues want to keep people unemployed), which might lead to the slim possibility of a GOP victory. So, for the first time in years my POTUS vote might actually count.
This might be the most difficult decision I've even had to make when voting. Because I can't vote for Biden, I'm left with Trump or a wasted vote.
The one clear benefit to voting for Trump is, it'll piss Dan off even more than he already is.
I'm just curious here. Seriously, just curious. If we, the voters, wanted to get across our disgust with the total lack of good candidates being offered to us, how would we get that done? I don't think we'll accomplish it by continuing to vote for "our guy." (And I'd like to point out that I don't think it's a "conservative" problem. Lots on the other side have the same problem.)
Stan,
That's a great question. Over the last two elections we've been faced with three of the absolute worst candidates in the 20th/21st centuries.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a great way to express that in the general election because of the current two party dominance of the process. Perhaps there should be a "They all stink, and I'm not voting for any of them." option. Or tracking of people who vote down ballot but not for POTUS. Unfortunately, there's no way to differentiate between reasons why people don't vote.
The better opportunity is probably in the primary process, although these 15-20 person primary fields probably split the vote too much to really coalesce around someone.
I'd love to think that it'd be possible to start a third party movement, but I'm not sure it'd work. I think the big two know they have the monopoly and would fight against anything that threatened their control.
Crazy idea. Declare some sort of electoral "Jubilee" equivalent. Pick a year and everything is up for grabs. Blow up the GOP and the DFL and start from scratch, then put every member of congress up for reelection as well as POTUS.
A political "Jubilee" year. I like it. Oh, never happened and don't know that it would do any good, but I like it.
It's not apathy, its resignation. All of my voting life has been to vote for a lesser of two evils. And it's not like it's a large gap between either. Bush felt like he barely comprehended what was going on (though that may have just been how his face always looked). Trump is so far separated from the truth, he wouldn't know how to repeat a fact if it was typed on a teleprompter for him.
I said it was crazy. You’re right that it probably wouldn’t do much good.
If not a Jubilee year, how about enacting the Purge?
Post a Comment