|
Tuesday, 13 February 2007 18:29 |
 | | Mark West |
Is the president really the ìdecider?î Can ó and should ó the president ignore the will of the public? This is a complex question, and one which has been worrying me for a while now.
I have been watching George W. Bush as he managed to derail the nation, sending the ship of state lurching into various obstacles from which extrication will prove difficult and may take years.
But ours is a representative government. The assumption of the founders of our nation was that the average individual had neither the time nor the inclination to be informed about every detail of governance, and that the public would instead elect representatives who would perform those tasks in their place.
Another,
less obvious goal of representative government is for sober
deliberative bodies to conduct their business without the influence of
the whim of the mob.
The example of
the French Revolution, in which the will of the people ran to violence
and revolution, was in the minds of the people who crafted the laws of
our nation in the first half-century of its existence; those people
were hence concerned with the rights of the few in the face of the
overwhelming power of the many.
And, as such, the president is largely insulated from the vagaries of public election.
The public can
vote on whether a president may continue into a second term; but the
public cannot vote on the performance of the president.
After a major
battle during war, a presidentís popularity may sag, or after a popular
but unwise tax cut their popularity surge.
But, the goal of
the founders was to encourage presidents to be statesmen, not
politicians; and their insulation from the whim of the public is a
strength of the system, not a failing. A strength, that is, provided
that the president manages, at least occasionally, to be right.
And that is
George W. Bushís problem; as numerous exposes by former staffers have
suggested, the president to entered office with removing Saddam Hussein
from office foremost in his mind. His vision of his father as a man too
timid to take the bold steps which would have made the world better
made him reckless, and willing to engage in foolhardy adventures.
His wish to be
thought decisive has made him foolish. Such a man will not be daunted
by some sort of congressional suggestion that he should curtail the war
in Iraq and seek to avoid to a confrontation with Iran.
Perhaps for good
reasons, he will not heed public opinion; certainly, for bad reasons,
he will not heed the urgings of the Senate or of the House.
You will, of
course, hear arguments that Congressional action to stop President
Bushís adventures in nation-building will ësend a bad message.í Iím not
so sure the message such action would send would be bad; surely the
news that grown-ups are once again in charge of the United States would
be welcomed by all.
To defend the
nation against further loss of life in Iraq, and against a potential
debacle in Iran, Congress has only one choice. It must use its ability
to curtail funding to prevent further military adventurism, and it must
do so now.
George W. Bush may be a decider, as he famously claimed. We may be thankful that he is not the only one.
ï
Mark West is a professor of mass communications at UNC Asheville.
|
