Posted on 12/16/2013 10:35:14 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Besides Ross Douthat, is there anyone left on the New York Times op-ed page who doesnt support benign dictatorship in the name of reducing congressional gridlock? Brooks evidently does. Tom Friedman, whos been drooling on himself for years over Chinas can-do model of government, certainly does. I dont know if Timothy Egans ever squarely addressed the issue but a guy who thinks Os big problem is that his speeches arent flowery enough must be open to persuasion.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
I'm pretty sure that one needs a tag .... for the visitors.
;)
Correcto. Dick Nixon took Arthur Schlesinger and James McGregor Burns's high-foreheaded "imperial presidency" and crammed it where the sun didn't shine. They hated it then. Dick Nixon was one of the most useful preceptors the Republic has ever had. Not always positive, but needed.
“I’m perfectly serious, and stop calling me Shirley!”
“I want to wish you good luck, we’re all counting on you!”
Brooks is soooo wrong.
In countries with a Prime Minister, they don’t have fixed terms. Instead, a failed vote of “No Confidence” in the Parliament can trigger a new election, which usually results in a different coalition. The government and the Chief Executive have more power, but it can be checked through a No Confidence vote.
Making the President a Caesar for a fixed four year term would be a big mistake. The Founders wisely sought to balance the need for executive power by giving the President enough time to settle in and work, but by structurally inhibiting his reach during that time. Brooks would remove that check.
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.