Reply #1: "Govern" seems to have changed its meaning. [View All]

[Igel]

The president still governs. It's just that there's a check on his governing, so he cannot govern unilaterally.

What Democrats cannot do--even to the extent that they did before--is unilaterally shape government and what laws and budgets look like.

"Govern" does not mean "rule without limitation or constraint," "to execute one's will without serious impediment." It does not mean "dictate," least not in a representative democracy.

I recently heard that Obama's "governing" the country consisted of entirely legislative and regulatory acts--the activities of executing the laws and keeping the regulatory and civil-service apparatus up and running didn't, it would seem, constitute governing.

Then again, what do I know? I was trained in shared governance in grad school, where all the stakeholders are consulted and have a voice--seldom did anybody get what they wanted, although most people were reasonably content with the outcome. It shifted at times from governance that wasn't very shared to government that was absurdly diffuse, as required. I thought that it was a great system, albeit a bit slow and messy. Silly me. The chancellor should have made all the decisions and told off the Academic Senate and student governments whenever they disagreed.

Eh. Sometimes I'm more in favor of a democracy that I don't like than a Democracy that I would like. (Or maybe that should be a "Democratocracy"?)