Let's all agree on this at least, OK?
peter jaques: our broken political system
The Presidency of the United States is an obsolete office. It perhaps made sense when we were a country of 13 states and a few million people, with little global power. Even then, that was a lot of power in one man’s hands. But now, the power that rests with the US President is downright imperial. One man is in direct control of the deadliest military in history. He also has enormous power over the richest economy in the world (I think it’s the richest, right?), a covert action apparatus in the CIA which has historically destroyed several foreign governments, and a diplomatic corps that determines profound global alliances. No one person should have that power. No one should be able to wield the US military according solely to his personal discretion.
Comments
agreed.
Posted by: lainie | November 2, 2004 8:53 AM
Hi Lainie - We really like the CD you sent - THANKS. I'm way behind on my email.
Posted by: David Jacobs | November 2, 2004 9:04 AM
ditto.
Posted by: zagg | November 2, 2004 9:15 AM
No problem, DJ...do I ever know what it's like to be behind on e-mail, and just about everything else!
Posted by: lainie | November 2, 2004 9:21 AM
But should one person have the right to stop us military power based on his own political beliefs? Or should one person be able to attack the united states based on his own personal beliefs?
That's a misrepresentation of how American power works, and my rhetorical questions are a misrepresentation of how people think, or how people react to military power in this world.
It feels like your way of looking at things obscures the rest of the picture.
though i entirely agree that american military power as it is used today has too much of a broad power.
it's just not really wielded or directed by one man. he had support, man. everyone in that house fucked it up.
Posted by: hk | November 2, 2004 9:40 AM
HK-- Hi, I'm the original poster of the article. Of course one person SHOULDN'T be able to attack the US based on his own beliefs, but we don't get to vote for head of Al-Qaeda. I don't understand who you're talking about "stop[ping] us military power" unilaterally.
& of course Bush had support. Lots of it. But he still has all the power.
--p
Posted by: peter jaques | November 2, 2004 12:54 PM
pierre;
hopefully your narrow view will be proved wrong in the american elections today.
i think it's overly simplified, and it fails to acknowledge how real power works. but it does reveal a tendency to limit the scope of one's thinking on to one individual to prove an idea.
i respect your view, but i would say that it's overly simple. makes good rhetoric, though.
Posted by: hk | November 2, 2004 4:19 PM
HK-- I don't see how the polls can affect what I was arguing. Whoever wins, I think the president holds too much power. Yes, he's not alone, other people influence him, but he's the one signing the orders to the marines to go drop bombs. It's too much power for Kerry too, or Clinton or Carter.
I'd be interested for you to flesh out your arguments more if you have a chance. So far, you've mostly just labeled my idea "narrow" & "simplified" "rhetoric" without any real counter argument. The one substantive thing you've said was that Bush "had help," which I agreed with in my response.
--p
Posted by: peter jaques | November 2, 2004 11:09 PM