liberals need to embrace a strong/imperial President at the expense of Congress

[geek tragedy]

Here is the truth: our people show up for only 50% of Congressional elections. And our system of geographical districts (both House and Senate) is strongly biased in favor of white, rural conservative voters and against people of color and those in urban areas.

Which means it takes extraordinary circumstances for us to have any kind of working majority in either house, let alone both. Which means legislation will pass only if it is 20 years overdue.

In short, it may be another generation before we control Congress again. We essentially need to wait for the GOP base to die off.

The only game in town for us is the President being able to get shit done. Because Presidential elections are a level playing field, that means we win. And the only change that's going to happen in anything resembling a timely manner is via executive action, not legislation.

I really don't give a fuck what the 'founding fathers' intended--their intent was to have a gridlocked system that benefited the wealthy ownership class.

[djean111]

1. You are right - but let's be careful that a strong, imperialistic president is not a corporatist.

Let's be real careful about that.

[vi5]

2. We needed to embrace that after 2008

Anyone who thinks we had any other option is delusional, naive, or both.

How many times those first few years did so many of us go "But no....they're not going to go for bipartisanship. They are going to screw us at every turn.....no, really we're not going to get anywhere by playing nice!" and were told to STFU because "We're better than them" or "Relax......the president's got this" or "the voters want people to work together so playing nice will show them the Republicans true colors and they'll vote them out of office!".

Yeah, none of that happened. Just like we said.

Whenever I try to tell people what the Republicans have been pulling in the Senate with the Fillibuster I get the "Well how did Bush get as much Republican legislation pushed through with much less of a Republican majority (when they even had a majority at all)?

[MannyGoldstein]

3. That'll be a great precedent for President Jeb, President Paul,

or for any other ne'er-do-well should (God forbid!) they take the White House.

I think that enough damage has been done to our Constitution. We need to win elections.

[geek tragedy]

5. There's only one way we can win Congress--having a Republican president f@ck things up royally

such that even rightwing white people vote Democratic in protest.

Absent that, Democrats are not going to be a serious threat to control Congress and pass legislation for another two decades.

The constitution was set up to favor the 1%.

[zazen]

9. but how could someone f*ck up more than George W. Bush?

He left the world economy in tatters, ignored threats about 9/11, drove us into an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and at least 4000 Americans, and left a vital American city to drown (that's a partial list).

I think the worse the Republicans are, the more they double down. It's that cognitive dissonance. .They have to over justify their bad decisions, so the more awful they are, the worse their rationalizations and determination to project blame and hate anywhere but at themselves.

[geek tragedy]

10. Bush is the reason we controlled Congress from 2006-2010.

Democrats made the mistake of thinking 2006 and 2008 were mandates for Democratic/liberal policy. They weren't--they were protests against Bush.

[Deny and Shred]

18. Democratic/liberal policy?

The Obama Administration ignored any liberal agenda in favor of the corporate agenda. Perhaps if it WAS approached as a mandate for liberal policies, a few more of the 50% that stayed home would have been inspired to go to the polls.

Please expound on the liberal agenda that was followed that led to yesterday. Was it ACA, LGBT rights, raising minimum wage?

It sure wasn't rolling back military adventures, pursuing Wall Street malfeasance, fighting fracking or offshore drilling, fighting TPP, insisting chained CPI is off the table, reducing economic inequality or even keeping it flat.

Please list the flaming liberal appointments that offended the electorate. We can all list the appointments that were very far from liberal.

[Scootaloo]

51. No, they took it as a mandate to snuffle at republican's taints

[Katashi_itto]

72. Not good enough. Americans need to be starving in the streets. Its that simple.

Soft, dumb and hateful. The average American.

[TDale313]

33. Absolutely right!

[kelly1mm]

4. Absolutely Not. Never. Even suggesting it SHOULD be ridiculous to any liberal. nt

ridiculous

[geek tragedy]

7. and why is that? you would prefer that Republican Congresses set the agenda

rather than Democratic presidents?

[Travis_0004]

13. I prefer checks and balance

Remember, there will be democrat presidents and there will be republican presidents.

[geek tragedy]

14. There will only be Republican Congresses. And there's no reason for there to ever

be a Republican president.

[Art_from_Ark]

24. Yeah, and there was no reason for there to be a Republican President in 2000,

but we still got stuck with Doofus, even though he lost.

[geek tragedy]

27. Demographics have shifted a lot since 2000.

Can't steal it if it isn't close.

[Art_from_Ark]

32. Yeah, demographics have changed a lot

We got our rear ends handed to us in this election, and states like Arkansas, which used to be dependably Democratic (except for presidential elections), are now blood red. And even states that were supposed to be "blue" elected a bunch of doofuses for the Senate, House, governorships, and other state offices.

And think of this-- since the Civil War, the Democrats have had the White House for 3+ successive terms on only one occasion-- the FDR-Truman years of 1933-53. In all other instances since 1865, it's always been one or two terms and then out with Democrats*


*Of course, Al Gore was the actual winner of the 2000 election and would have made it 3 successive terms for Democrats, but he was denied the Presidency.

[geek tragedy]

34. All the rightwing racists have migrated to

the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party chose civil rights over the Tom Cotton crowd. That's why they migrated.

[Art_from_Ark]

41. I don't deny that

Tom Cotton no doubt got lots of votes from racists, and Mark Pryor's strongest counties were mainly those with large proportions of African-Americans.

But there are also lots of single-issue voters in the state, as I noted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5773429

And it's not just Arkansas by any means, as we saw by Tuesday's election results.

At this stage, I am very concerned that we will lose the White House in 2016-- the historical precedent is against us-- and the coattail effect will also mean even more Republicans in Congress. Letting a Republican President have the kind of power you describe-- whether intentional or not-- would be an absolute disaster.

[geek tragedy]

46. A republican president will have a republican congress

So I don't see much downside there.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. But, a Republican President usually loses House and/or Senate seats

in mid-term elections (Junior was the only one to buck the trend since at least 1910, and that was only one time, in 2002 when he was riding the wave of his Afghanistan war. Junior went on to lose the House in 2006). So Republican presidents might get their majority for two years, but then likely have to deal with one or two Democratic majorities in the Congress after their first mid-term.

[kelly1mm]

20. I would prefer that the will of the voters as expressed through their representatives

in congress be the agenda - good or bad. That is fundamental to a legitimate representative republic.

A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship.

[geek tragedy]

21. The president is also elected.

And the executive branch actually functions. Congress is an obstacle to change, and will always be so.

[kelly1mm]

38. Then call for a constitutional convention by the states or pass some constitutional amendments.

I agree that the congress is an obstacle to change. I seem to disagree with you though that because of that fact we should disregard the constitutional checks and balances (aka obstacles) inherent in the current system.

[geek tragedy]

40. The constitution is a living document.

Just change the interpretation over time.

[kelly1mm]

42. I fail to see how the constitution as it is now could ever be interpreted to allow

the executive unlimited executive power. Thus, if you want to get rid of the legislative branch all together (I certainly do not) then you would need to get a new constitution (probably) or significant amendments passed.

Or, I suppose if you real felt strongly about putting all the power in the hand of the single executive that you could just 'interpret' the constitution to mean that the executive can act without the legislature or the courts. Then we would not have to deal with any checks and balances. That would just be PEACHY because, you know, the single executive will always act benevolently.

[geek tragedy]

45. Not unlimited, just a lot. nt

[kelly1mm]

47. Ok - I guess we just disagree here. I am totally against the imperial Presidency and the

supremacy of the executive over the legislative branch as a matter of principle. That does not mean I am right.

You seem to be suggesting that the executive branch should be allowed to act for the 'good of the people' or for 'progress' without the consent of congress, or, I suppose, even in direct opposition to congress. Please let me know if I am interpreting your position incorrectly.

My issue is not with our current President or what he may think is in our country's best interest, but rather what some future President may see is in the country's best interest. I am not willing to take that chance.

(PS - I guess I am a bit of a process nerd and actually care about the way government works, rather than the end result solely. That is why I am also against filibuster reform. Do the R's filibuster WAY too often? Yes. Do I want to take away the minority parties (AKA D's in a few months) ability to require a supermajority to pass really bad laws because R's abuse it? No.)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. Oh, I get it.

You're playing up to stereotype of the liberal dictator suddenly pulling the mask off.

I have to admit it, you had me convinced for a minute there.

[geek tragedy]

71. dictator? by favoring the executive's ability to implement change via administrative

action in areas like immigration, health care, and climate change?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. You mean like administratively declare all reproductive health services be federalized

and then administratively not allocate any funding towards reproductive health services?

[geek tragedy]

75. no. Like the EPA regulating carbon emissions in order to fight global warming.

And coming up with a rational enforcement strategy on immigration, including deportations.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. So a president will then have the power to declare 0 carbon emission restrictions.

Because he gets to decide unilaterally and is not bound by the legislature.

I still don't think you're serious because you pegged on every term the RW uses to make caricatures about Progressive "power grabs."

[Drunken Irishman]

52. Do you know who made the presidency imperial?

[kelly1mm]

54. So? You could make an argument that the roots of the imperial Presidency go back to Lincoln.

Still does not change my view.

If Jesus H. Christ himself came down from heaven and took over the Presidency, I would STILL be opposed.

It is about the process, not the person/policies. I cannot make it any clearer than that.

[Drunken Irishman]

55. Without an imperial presidency, nothing gets done.

[kelly1mm]

56. Then nothing gets done (until we figure out a way to get voters to vote for us). nt

[Drunken Irishman]

57. I hope Obama acts on immigration reform unilaterally.

I'm glad Truman signed an EO desegregating the military. Sometimes, a Pres. has to defy congress.

[kelly1mm]

59. And when (hypothetically) President Cruz signs an EO gutting the ACA, you will say

what in response? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You cannot (without being a hypocrite) say that President Obama has the power to do X by EO and turn around and say that some future R President who does Y by EO does not have that power.

You can say that President Obama's 'X' is/was a good policy and the R President doing 'Y' is a bad policy, but you really can't argue that the R President can't do Y if a D President can do X.

You seem to be a 'by any means necessary' person. That is OK. There are many that think like you do. I just am not one of them and I realize that means that some things I would like will come slowly if not at all in my lifetime.

[Drunken Irishman]

60. He won't be able to sign an EO doing that.

[kelly1mm]

61. Perhaps not (although since President Obama has 'extended' timeframes for things like the

employer mandate by EO, I would assume you would agree that the (hypothetical) R President could issue EO's granting waivers to states and or extending the employer mandate indefinitely, right?).

So, since this is a hypothetical, pick some other item you believe would be terrible policy that an R President could do by EO and tell me that that would be perfectly fine with you (on a 'can do' not 'should do' basis).

This is not really that hard a concept. I do not want to give any more power to an office that could be held by the likes of Ted Cruz. You seem to think that is just Peachy.

[Drunken Irishman]

62. The power is already there, though. That's the difference.

We either use it or don't - it won't stop the Republicans from using it if we don't (see the filibuster).

[kelly1mm]

63. The OP is arguing for an imperial Presidency that (basically) ignores the legislative branch.

We are on a kind of side argument of that which is EOs. EO's are (supposed to be) orders related to the implementation of US Government policy as passed by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive. In theory, they are pretty limited.

What I believe the OP is calling for and I am not sure if you agree, if for the President to unilaterally set new US government policy without legislative action (or worse) in direct opposition to legislative action.

I do not even like EO's and I think I have expressed why. I certainly do not want to give more power to the executive.

[Drunken Irishman]

64. Again, the power is already there.

It's up to the president to use it - as others have. If Obama refuses to use EO and the reach of the executive branch, it won't make the person who replaces him any less likely to do so.

[kelly1mm]

66. Do you think we should even have a legislative branch? If the executive can ignore/contravene

the legislative branch, why should we have it. While we are at it, do you think we should have a judicial branch? Why?

Shoot, maybe we should do away with all 3 branches of government and go to direct democracy over the internet.

Or maybe not.

[Drunken Irishman]

68. I think we should have one that does their job. If they don't, the president is within his authority

...to do what he can to move the country forward. Just as long as it's constitutional, which I believe everything Obama could do would be.

[kelly1mm]

79. Define "their job" and "move the country forward" please. Then, try to think what Ted Cruz

would think is congresses job and what moving the country forward means.

That is all I am saying. Since you believe the R's will do so or already do, please give me a list of the horrible EO's signed by President Bush in his term. I am especially interested in ones overturned by President Obama.

[Fred Sanders]

6. What America clearly needs to function is a fucking white person as President, that is the message.

[zazen]

8. strong Dem presidents who were _called_ bullies were FDR and Johnson

who at least got important legislation passed.

There are no new laws that need to be passed for the current President to take much more unilateral action and dare Congress to stop him. Any Republican President has and will do that. And Democratic Presidents who practice policies of appeasement are kidding themselves.

This has all been appeasement, and I don't give a shit about pronouncements not to compare this to the Weimar Republic. We've seen a drip, drip, drip since 2000, with Liberals taking the high road. Well, that road has taken us to levels of income inequality not seen since the 19th century, joblessness, despair, the erosion of the middle class (erasing decades of gains among African Americans), inaction in the face of imminent, irreparable climate change, and so on and so on.

[Recursion]

11. A "unitary executive", one might even say?

[geek tragedy]

15. Presidents drive change in our system. Congress either gets dragged along for the ride

or acts as a roadblock.

[Recursion]

16. Not really

Congressional leaders are the ones with real power

[geek tragedy]

22. Two words: John Boehner. nt

[Recursion]

23. Sorry: *competent* Congressional leaders are the ones with real power

That asshat can't even control his own caucus...

[geek tragedy]

25. No one can control a majority caucus that wants

to be the opposition party.

Republicans have gone from wanting limited government to opposing governance itself.

Nihilists, Dude.

[Deny and Shred]

12. Have you been paying attention for the past six years?

Republicans now set the agenda. The time for an 'imperial' Democratic President came and went. Liberals were gung-ho for an 'Imperial' President to undo much of the previous Administration.

In '08, liberals were instrumental in getting him elected, and supported him as President. They weren't writing-in Wavy Gravy. Obama had an enormous opportunity. He purposely reached across the aisle, sided with the corporate donors and disregarded the left in favor of Rahm, Penny, Arne, drones, NSA expansion, whistleblower prosecutions, etc., etc.

The other 50% that didn't go the polls this time weren't exclusively liberals. They were typically apathetic Americans who weren't inspired to go. Perhaps you start there.

Keep punching the hippies, though. Once you knock them out, I'm sure electoral victories will be a breeze.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

17. NO! No! No! No!

Cheney/Bush has walked us too far down that road, and, sad to say, Obama has walked it farther still.

We need to get off that shit road and win some elections.

Look, I'm in Texas. I never expected Wendy Davis to win, but I expected her to get a lot closer than she did. She ran a bad campaign and Mayor Parker helped put the nail in the coffin.

Texas is not blue, yet, but we are closer than last night might indicate. Wars are won one battle at a time, and you lose a few along the way.

DON'T GIVE UP!

[geek tragedy]

19. No, we are not close.

Not in Texas, not in the nation.

Texas?

2006, 2008, 2012 were the three best elections for Democrats nationally over the past 30 years.

2006: Kay Bailey Hutchison wins by 25%; Perry wins by 10%
2008: John Cornyn wins by 12%
2012: Ted Cruz wins by 16%

Wendy Davis was a bad candidate, but she was running against an even worse candidate.

Republicans have a near-permanent lock on the House of Representatives. They won't be even close to vulnerable until (a) we elect a Republican president who fucks everything up so much part of their base votes Democratic to punish them or (b) until everyone who's 65+ now is dead.

That's the cold hard truth.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. No. To call this "short sighted" is a gross understatement.

The powers of the presidency are too strong now.

[geek tragedy]

31. There is a reason no other country has adopted our

"separation of powers" nonsense-- with everyone eschewing it for a parliamentary system.

Here is what is short- sighted: waiting another 50 years for Congress to address climate change and immigration.

There is only one branch capable of addressing today's and tomorrow's problems.

Failing a movement to scrap our highly overrated constitutional scheme, the only option is to bypass an irredeemably dysfunctional institution.

[LeftInTX]

28. What's an imperial president?

Why do I picture Dick Cheney?

Am I missing something here?

[cherokeeprogressive]

29. FUCK THAT, nine ways from Sunday.

[Rex]

30. I think you are speaking to the wrong crowd.

You need to focus your attention on the moderates and conservatives in the party. Since they seem to show up less and vote, maybe tell them to embrace the POTUS? We need to focus on the people that hurt us the most, the people that don't vote!

The M$M lies through it's teeth about having an unpopular POTUS...BS I don't believe it and anyone that buys into that has been brainwashed. Their social engineering experiment worked, once again! Obama brought us to the dance, don't run from him, his record is golden right now.

But they did...

Also. the POTUS is running 100% perfect right now, if GOPukers think Congress will now be a holding pattern - no shit the past 6 years has been nothing but! I think he knows how to out fox the buzzards (Mitch, talking about you).

Watch Obama drive them crazy! I don't think they realize the depths of his calm demeanor.

[geek tragedy]

36. Voters support Obama's policies, but they're tired of him.

Politics can be deeply stupid sometimes.

[Rex]

39. I'm sure that happens to every second termer.

Not just deeply stupid, unnecessarily nuanced into absurdity.

[BlindTiresias]

35. The GOP base won't die off

Wishful thinking and a strategic blunder.

[geek tragedy]

37. Are they vampires? Nt

[BlindTiresias]

49. No

But they aren't forever stuck with old people either. Whether or not they can get the youth vote so many orthodox dems are now saying is worthless will determine their future prospects.

[bluestateguy]

43. A dictator would be great

As long as I support and favor the dictator's policies.

[Throd]

44. I'll do it. You'll love me until you don't.

[MFrohike]

50. This is beyond stupid

The assumptions underlying it are the reason, not the elitist desire to stick it to the ungrateful proles who didn't back your horse. Let's go through them:

1. Congress is lost because not enough Democrats vote. Well, that's one way to look at it. It's a bit like whining that you can't get a date without bothering to mention that you didn't ask anybody. Perhaps, just perhaps, the Democratic electoral strategy should be Democratic. You know, trying to woo working people, small business, and parents with policies that might actually help them? Maybe propose a progressive corporate income tax, a reduction of taxes on all but the wealthy, replacing the entire student loan program with federal grants. Would these ideas be accepted overnight? No. Would they be accepted if you built a campaign over years instead of pivoting from issue to issue every two months because your pollsters have the attention span of hyperactive puppies? Maybe.

2. The demographic argument. If the Democratic party can't produce, why will people vote for it? A lot of people assume the politicians can just kneel on the ball and wait out the clock, but I suspect the Democratic party will go the way of the Whigs if they actually try that. Additionally, the arrogant assumption that minorities have nowhere else to go is just sickening. The politicians are our employees, not our lords.

3. You don't know shit about how electoral districts are created. The old rural/urban divide of the past doesn't exist anymore. The general rule is that if the largest congressional district in a state is more than 1% larger than the smallest, it's unconstitutional. There is a larger deviation in state legislative districts, up to 10% I believe, but the federal level is quite strict.

Before you mention it, gerrymandering for partisan effect is nothing like unequal distribution of population across congressional districts. Gerrymandering keeps to the numerical formula while drawing contorted electoral maps in an effort to gain partisan advantage. That is not a violation of the classic "one man, one vote" doctrine.

4. Executive orders are extremely weak ground with which to govern. Their reach is essentially defined as either the inherent powers of Article 2 or the power delegated by Congress. Any attempt to go further will be attacked by the court. Personally, I think it's high time the court got slapped down rudely for its blatant power grabs of the last 40 years, but there hasn't been a president with the proper view of the distribution of power among the branches since at least LBJ, if not earlier. No modern president has the balls, metaphorically of course, to challenge the court in a manner even vaguely reminiscent of FDR, much less Andrew Jackson. What does all of that mean? It means any president who tries to govern by executive order while facing a supreme court drunk on its own power will find him or herself in a world of hurt.

5. Government by decree is pretty much the classic definition of tyranny. Good fucking luck with that.

The danger of this type of tyranny is that it will breed bad habits. What check can there be on an executive who can simply ignore Congress?

[Last_Stand]

53. If only you would have brought this idea to us 6 years ago...

/liberal fist clench

[NaturalHigh]

58. Strong yes, imperial no.

Our government's system of checks and balances is in place for a reason.

[Savannahmann]

65. I couldn't believe what I read here.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you are just hurt, angry, and feeling betrayed after election night. That is understandable. I don't feel much of that, I've been seeing this day coming since March.

An Imperial President has another name. Dictator. You say this is needed, because we can't win during the midterms. Yes, we can. We won in 2006, and we lost it in 2010. We won because the Republicans gave their candidates a vote of No Confidence as was mentioned above. We lost it because we forgot the average guy and we didn't live up to our promises. We did the right thing, in the wrong way.

But let's go back to this Imperial President idea of yours. Let's talk about that, because that is the most dangerous idea anyone has ever proposed, and here is the thing. You would rant and rail, protest and object if it was a Republican. So if the Republicans win, then their guy is the Dictator.

Here is a handful, a mere portion of some of the reasons I don't want that. Not because of the Founding Fathers, but because of the future. Every President builds on what the guy before did. Bush did more than Clinton, who did more than Bush, who did more than Reagan. By more, I mean more erosions of Civil Rights, more erosions of individual rights. More fast and loose with the rules. Well, he did that, so I can do this.

No, I won't support an Imperial Presidency. I'll be Leo.

I'll raise an army, and I'll argue using the best techniques I know.

I understand. You feel betrayed, you feel angry, and you want to do what you think is right. The problem isn't with what you want for them, your problem is in explaining it to the people so they want it too. Reagan was a genius at one thing, the ability to speak to the people. He could explain something simply, and reasonably accurately, to the people. He was wrong about Trickle Down Economics, we all know that. But he could teach the people and they supported him. Nobody has done that since. They've used the power, but not the pulpit. Oh, they get up and hurl thunderbolts at the little people who don't get in line. But they haven't pied piper and led the people to the destination.

You can't just stand there and dismissively announce that you're following the best advice and the concerns of the people are not even worth mention. You can lead them, but you must respect and love them.

When we start to communicate with the people. When we start to talk to the people, and teach the people what we believe and why. Not with arrogance, but with love, and respect. They will follow. But we have to make it true, and simple, like a plaque about a painting at the museum. And we have to recognize when we do a bad job, and they reject us, it's a call to work harder, not give up and go all dictatorial.

If this is the plan, you can not only count me out, but you can count me in total opposition. I'm a good friend, loyal and dependable. I'm a worse enemy, creative, determined, and relentless. We aren't ruling the people, we are serving them. If they choose another that is not their fault, it's ours. We did not serve their wishes, we didn't take their concerns into account, and we didn't listen to a thing they said. They fired us. We the People is the whole point of the thing. Not we the Democrats, nor we the President.

It's not over the Founding Fathers that I would oppose you. It's for the future.

[woo me with science]

67. Yeah, yeah, we know.

The Third Way = Fascism.

[badtoworse]

69. Be careful what you wish for.

[ileus]

73. An Emperor now that's a good Ideer

Having a president is so 1800's...

[RKP5637]

76. I've been waiting for the GOP base to die off for over 50 years! They don't, new ones come

along all the time. I had also hoped the haters would finally die off, they don't, new ones come along all the time. We need strategies that embrace the fact there will always be large numbers of haters and the GOP around.

IMO the system is broken. When Bush and Cheney came into power they did not give a fuck about anyone but their power grab. That, IMO, is a problem with the democrats. Democrats try to move forward while saying 'pretty please' all of the time.

Many republicans don't give a fuck, they just move forward with their agenda. We need more democrats with guts to stand up for the 'old democratic principles' than trying to be republican-lite. The latter is a stupid losing strategy IMO and frankly loses respect by many for their inept strategy. It is, an admission of defeat by campaigning in the republican-lite manner.

[mb999]

77. get rid of the mid term elections altogether

put the entire congress up for vote every 4 years with the president. People can then decide what government they want. That should cut down on this gridlock bs.