Topic: Government's Responsibilities
Ron Paul, John McCain, Barack Obama And The Real Deal Ding Dang Deelio-- We've Forgotten Who Our President Really Is...by Scott from Oregon
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Ron Paul would not make a great president. He wouldn't look right, suited up and teetering out onto the White House lawn, ceremoniously passing out rewards to deserving men and women while guns saluted and the band played with its brass polished on a glinty afternoon...
He would look old, futile, too disbelieving of his own circumstances. The ceremony would have an element of silliness to it; Ron Paul, trying to act presidential; the participants of this ceremony, all trying to pretend that he is...
Sort of like George W. Bush.
Say what you like about Bill Clinton, but at least he looked presidential. He was tall. He stood up straight. He looked smart and spoke eloquently without botching it all up and mangling everything. A ceremony had the feel of... well... a ceremony.
And that is as it should be.
Now I know there are other roles the president plays, but in the original design of the American system, wasn't the primary role of the president ceremonial? The people elect their figurehead, but they also elect a Congress. That Congress is charged with doing the biddings of the people who they were elected to represent. The president is granted veto power, sure, but Congress is granted the power to override the veto, thus giving the Congressional body the real access to the levers and buttons of everyday governance. While Congress established laws and made the system work, the president was supposed to be making speeches and giving the American people a heads up on what America was up to. We The People made choices about our law makers. They in turn, acted in accordance with our choices. The president, in turn, put on a nice tailored suit and told us about the choices being implemented, congratulating everyone for a job well done.
Wasn't that the original dream?
Can anyone imagine John McCain standing on that lawn, handing out ribbons and medals to men and women almost all taller than he? As a ceremonial leader, can you see him being any more presidential than the mediocre George W Bush? As a person who wants to command our attention and make us proud-- John McCain is a failing figure without the necessary attributes. He's short, his face is lopsided, he has a temper and he forgets his lines. Sorry folks. John McCain does not possess the goods to be a regal, presidential master of ceremonies.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is tall enough for the job. Though his ears are large, he looks good in a suit and tie, he speaks eloquently, and he can remember his lines. If the job of being president is as it was originally conceived, Barack Obama would be a good choice for master of ceremonies. Americans wouldn't cringe every time he had to answer questions off the cuff. He knows how to be thoughtful, and how to articulate himself extremely well. He can give impassioned speeches and he stands erect, walks with a bit of coordination, and knows how to laugh at things which are genuinely funny. When figureheads from other nations stopped by for talks, Americans would not have to cringe with embarrassment, like they do now.
But here's the ding dang deelio--
America is not operating under the system that was originally conceived for her. The presidential powers have been expanded, the Constitution has been abandoned, and the Congress is not holding up its Congressional responsibilities.
Incrementally, the American paradigm has shifted. A large, top down centralization of power has taken place, and the role of the presidency has been changed. Congress has shirked many of its responsibilities and the will of the people has been muted by misinformation, misguided patriotism, and simple ignorance.Who can forget the now infamous words of Dick Cheney, when informed that the will of the presidency was not in alignment with the will of the American people?
"So?"
And who can forget the words of the mediocre president G. W. Bush, when asked to change course in a war he got so wrong, so often, and so detrimentally?
"I am the decider."
America does not need these people in positions of Executive power. We do not need to be lied to. We do not need to be manipulated. We don't need our resources spent and our populace dictated to by short, ineloquent men who, instead of proudly adorning the government with gracious words and ceremony, take it upon themselves to dictate to the rest of us.
Ron Paul would make a lousy president. He does, however, make a great Congressman. Barack Obama would make a pretty good president. However, he would have to undergo some fundamental education as to what the Constitution actually requires of the job. It is not the job of the president to reach outside of our borders and stir up trouble in the world. It is not the job of the president to meddle in all of our personal affairs. It is not the job of the president to solve all of our local community problems, or to dictate to each local government, or to be the one and only "decider" for our nation.
In fact, the job of the president should be mostly ceremonial.
Stand up straight. Talk clearly. Leave the powers of governance in the hands of the people, where it was originally intended.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 13 thumbs so far
2008 Scott from Oregon, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Scott from Oregon only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Scott from Oregon is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
So does this mean that when Herbert Hoover saw the great depression that he should have resorted to socialism and admitted that free markets were wrong? That is nothing more than pandering to the oppositions wishes. Why change when your party won reelection in 2004 and then lost due to Democrats putting in Conservative candidates (Like Jim Webb of Virginia) to take on Conservative Republicans. The American public if left with every decision would cause an ultimate collapse in this country to the party that appealed to them the most. I am talking mass socialism, mass losses of freedom for gays, mass walls being built arround the country to keep out illegals, and the possibility that Jim Crow laws would still be in effect in parts of the country. The limited Democracy that we have has kept us safe and progressive. The very things that we continue to fight are irationality and religion.
Think about it this way, did Obama or Clinton write articles in Popular Science that used rationality to put 9/11 truthers in their place? No, McCain did. He is the most level headed of all three candidates and he does not try to play to religious zealots pandering as much as Bush did. (so no John Ashcroft in McCain's lineup)
This is the best reason that I can think of to support McCain. I definityly can't say the same thing about socialists like Obamma or semi free trade Clinton. McCain for the most part has played the Centrist role correctly in order to get into the White House.
The difference between Ron Paul and Barack is that Ron looks you in the eye, like a country doctor does. When Barack looks down, he's looking for an imaginary piece of paper for the right answer. It's subtle, but I look for it. Hillary has that wax smile that doesn't change with her audience. It works for her because she does it for every new audience. It is so canned. McCain is trying to use that tired "my friends" as if it is some magic talisman that will give him the next rung of the ladder. It gets old the third or fourth time on YouTube. He has no clue.
Ron Paul doesn't have to rehearse a new speech every time, because he's reciting the same mantra for the last 40+ years. He can jazz it up and still get the basics right. I wish I could keep an audience enthralled for an hour, like last Monday in Ft. Wayne.
I'm afraid that you are making a good point, that Obama looks good in a suit. Reagan did that and he could write his own speeches. That slipped away with time. Obama is still young enough to pull this off. I'm hoping he can get us out of Iraq. The rest of the stuff I'll have to think about. McCain dithers on any thing. Hillary is the ultimate Pander Bear.
There needs to be a mentoring program that promotes more personal liberty and smaller government. Ron Paul is 72, as is McCain. We need more folks in their 20s, 30s and 40s who will step up and take the reins in both major parties, to move this country in the right direction. 3rd Party? Nah. That's not the best use of your time. Just do the right thing in everything you do.
Keep writing. You're entertaining. Scott from Oregon is listed on my second Hail Mary on my first decade of Joyful mysteries. I'm praying for your conversion. You're a peach! --dB.
So you think that a president has to be tall, well spoken and not too old? A president without much substance, a figurehead for a ceremonial position? What about when tough executive decisions come up, don't we need someone who is more than just about looks? Ron Paul has the mental capacity to make sound judgements. I think he would make a fine president. I beleive this article lacks insight as to what a president really does.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-05-07 23:20:16
"So you think that a president has to be tall, well spoken and not too old? A president without much substance, a figurehead for a ceremonial position? What about when tough executive decisions come up, don't we need someone who is more than just about looks? Ron Paul has the mental capacity to make sound judgements. I think he would make a fine president. I beleive this article lacks insight as to what a president really does."
And the point of the article was to make you think about what a president was originally intended to do, and for you to see that "executive decisions" are really nothing more than the executive branch taking power it was never originally granted.
The president is not supposed to be "the decider". We have allowed the president to take much more power from the populace than he/she was originally granted by the Constitution. So yes, I think the president should be a good representative and spokesman for America, but those decisions you hear presidential hopefuls arguing over (like obliterating Iran) is not supposed to even be in the president's jurisdiction. (Remember, Congress is supposed to declare war...)
I wrote this to point out just how far the perceptions of the president's functions have strayed...
If you wrote this to show how far perceptions have strayed of what a president should do, you failed miserably. All you managed to convey was that we should be more impressed with someone with the right ears rather than the right stuff in between the ears, and that we should be judging people on a much more superficial level.
If you don't like the idea of having a President in charge, perhaps you're living in the wrong country. How about a nicely dressed King and Queen born into royalty?
At any rate, I shall strive to become more superficial and stop admiring Ron Paul for his principles, honesty and wisdom because he doesn't look good in a suit.
Oh, yeah. And apparently I need to watch more TV. I think American Idol is on.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-05-08 22:13:47
"If you wrote this to show how far perceptions have strayed of what a president should do, you failed miserably. All you managed to convey was that we should be more impressed with someone with the right ears rather than the right stuff in between the ears, and that we should be judging people on a much more superficial level.
If you don't like the idea of having a President in charge, perhaps you're living in the wrong country. ..."
Ummm.... you made my point for me. The president is not "in charge". Not the way the system was designed. He was put in charge of the armed forces, sure, but the decision (responsibility) to use those forces was actually given to the Congress. He was not granted any power to make laws. He was not granted powers to judge. He was supposed to be much more of a figurehead and much less of a "decider"...
You too, have swallowed the new and improved presidential version. You look to the president for all the wrong reasons, to do all the wrong things...
Sadly too... Look what Bush did under these new perceptions...
I think the best choice for President would be one who is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul is the only one who would fit the bill. Dr. Paul would restore the office of the Presidency to the original intent. He would not be the king or the decider.
We have had self absorbed, pretentious career politicians in the White House for as long as I have been alive (with the possible exception of Reagan early on). Just look at how many times these yahoos use the word "I" in their speeches. Isn't it time to try a humble servant who does not want to rule, control or monitor United States citizens?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Scott from Oregon, all rights reserved.