Posted on 04/26/2011 3:41:23 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
The silly season is upon us. The presidential primary season is just around the corner and for the third time in a row a relatively unpopular president is likely to be reelected while his opposition is in disarray.
Almost alone among European democracies, the United States elects leaders on the basis of their campaign skills, not their governing skills. We elect the best TV performer — the best campaigner — regardless of previous experience. In Britain, only three people can be leader of the nation — the heads of the Labor, Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties. No other members of parliament, no mayor or military figure, no business or media titan, no sports or entertainment celebrity, can vie for the prime ministership.
Britain and other parliamentary systems have real leaders — seasoned, experienced politicians who have worked their way up the ladder to the executive level, overseeing their respective parties. They have to be members of parliament, of course, which means that they have extensive public voting records on the entire range of domestic and foreign policy issues. They are not self-nominated; they are party-nominated.
Contrast this with the silly American practice of allowing anyone, however inexperienced, to run for president. By no stretch of the imagination was John F. Kennedy leader of his party in 1960 — or Barry Goldwater leader of his in 1964. Jimmy Carter, briefly governor of Georgia, was a fringe figure in 1976, as was Bill Clinton in 1992. The man with the thinnest resume of all was probably Barack Obama in 2008, a Senate short-termer who had scarcely held any full-time job in his life. But JFK, Carter, Clinton and Obama all became media celebrities, puffed up by the TV-oriented media of their respective decades. As a result, we have had amateurs in the White House more often than not.
The problem is that in the United States political parties have no leaders. Who is the leader of the Republican Party today? The Senate leader is Mitch McConnell and the House leader is John Boehner. On a charisma scale of one to ten, McConnell would be, charitably, a one — and Boehner about a three. But neither really speaks for the party in the way that a party leader in Britain does. The chairman of the Republican National Committee is Reince Priebus, a virtual unknown whose name is difficult to spell or pronounce. The last Republican speaker of the House before Boehner was Denny Hastert, unknown to most Americans by name or face. Yet the speaker of the House, if we had the British system, would be prime minister and leader of the nation.
The party with a president in office does have a leader, if only for a few years. Ostensibly, Barack Obama, a part-time university lecturer, is the leader of the Democratic Party by virtue of the power and influence he yields. But when he leaves office (hopefully in less than two years), the Democrats will be wandering in the same wilderness the Republicans are in now. The Republicans, if they had any organization and dynamism, could help the situation in two ways: one, by establishing a Republican policy council that could speak for the party; two, by downgrading the primaries by cutting the number of delegates that can be won in them. The frontloading of primaries by both parties has helped accelerate the foolish media circus that accompanies them (along with the cattle show of “candidates” on stage in so-called debates). The Republican Party has taken the lead in trying to tame the primaries by spacing them out (though that effort is now encountering opposition from Florida Republicans). But much more needs to be done to restore party discipline and common sense to the nominating process.
The current system, which favors media celebrities (and creates them), is being exploited by Donald Trump (no experience in government) and Michele Bachmann (four years in the House of Representatives). Obama, with a few years in the U.S. Senate, is leading the nation into bankruptcy and unprecedented military vulnerability, as nuclear weapons are acquired by dictators far and near. John F. Kennedy, the youngest president ever elected, stumbled into disastrous policies toward Cuba and Vietnam early in his first term, revealing his inexperience in foreign affairs. Trump, Bachmann and Sarah Palin all lack the experience to be president and all would lose to Obama. Yet all are TV celebrities of the moment and are taken seriously as candidates.
Republicans might even have held their nominating convention a year early to set up their candidate for a full year of public confrontation with Obama. Someone as experienced as Mitt Romney, if the nominee, could then have avoided a fratricidal election-year struggle with other Republicans and would have become a strong spokesman for his party. The public would know where Republicans stand on the issues and who the Republican president would be. Instead, we are headed for another silly season and more self-nominated “candidates,” from a party with no real voice.
James Delmont is a widely published journalist and college teacher with a PhD in history. He has recently finished a book, The Great Liberal Death Wish.
We have many qualified governors. In fact, as a general rule, governors are far more qualified than any senator or representative because governors have executive experience.
And last but not least, there is no way on God's green earth that I want the Republican National Committee to have any say whatsoever for whom I can and can't vote.
Chalk up another Euro-wannabe.
The US Constitution has a separation of powers: The legislative, administrative, and judicial branches are supposed to act as “checks and balances” on each other.
The system being praised in this article is a kind of dictatorship of the majority, with the administration made up of legislators. And these systems generally do not have written constitutions guaranteeing rights.
“Is this any way to choose a leader? (president)”
It didn’t work in 2008.
This guy is a leftist hack. First off, which unpopular President was reelected for the 3rd time in '08? As a matter of fact, Bush was doing OK in the polls until after he was reelected if you want to count that election. Bubba slid in thanks to a third party siphoning votes from the GOP because Dole was tired and weak. We haven't even had a debate yet to square who is serious enough to support for the GOP.
The only people who call this the silly season are tired journolisters who are board with their jobs. There is nothing silly going on here. The country is collapsing and the loser POTUS we have is responsible. He will be getting thrown out of office after we sort out a candidate.
I think this author likes Romney, notes that he has a better resume on paper than some of the other possible candidates, and works backward from there. He’s not asking what system would be best. He’s asking what reconfiguration of the system would give Romney the best chance.
He’s concluded (probably with good reason) that Romney has a better chance of winning if he doesn’t have to face those messy and unpredictable primaries.
The Framers were deeply suspicious of political parties, regarding them as “factions” that put faction interests above national interest more often than not. They wanted citizen politicians not professional politicians. Since then progressives have sought to get political parties inserted into the Constitution, sometimes with success that the Constitution does not really support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.