Why does American politcs revolve around the President?

[Scheavo]

I'm really not sure if it's always been this way, but it's really started to annoy me how much of a distraction the President, and the election around the President, has become. Structurally, congress is more important than the President, but we all vote for the President as if he's a member of Congress. People talk about the President as the "most powerful man in the World," but if that's true, than all that says is how weak everyone else is.

So, why this obsession with the President? Is it due to ignorance? Is it because the media ratings / profits, since you can't talk nationally about a local election? Is it a fundamental problem with our splitting of the Executive and Legislative branches?

[jsem]

The executive branch has become all too powerful. That's what this tells us. That's why every year it's "the most important election ever" because they have power of more and more things.

[Sigz]

I think the reasons you gave are certainly factors, but I get the feeling that main reason is the voter's perception of how much of an impact their vote will have. In an election you're only voting for a tiny fraction of the legislative branch while you're voting for 100% of the executive branch, thus even though the legislative branch is more important a vote for president possibly carries more impact in the end, and certainly feels as if it has more impact.

[antigoon]

The president is still pretty damn powerful.

edit: by still, I really mean the power of the executive is continuing to be expanded.

[rumborak]

I think it's also partly due to the extreme form of individualism the US loves. It's always about singular people, and the president embodies that perfectly. When I compare the importance of ministers in a parliamentary cabinet to the US president's cabinet, the president's are essentially irrelevant.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

The executive branch has become all too powerful. That's what this tells us.

Really though? Obama couldn't pass health care reform in the fashion he wanted, he couldn't pass financial reform in the way he wanted, he couldn't close Guantanamo, he couldn't raise taxes on the Rich, etc, etc, etc.

I think the reasons you gave are certainly factors, but I get the feeling that main reason is the voter's perception of how much of an impact their vote will have. In an election you're only voting for a tiny fraction of the legislative branch while you're voting for 100% of the executive branch, thus even though the legislative branch is more important a vote for president possibly carries more impact in the end, and certainly feels as if it has more impact.

This makes sense to me. The President is more powerful than any individual Congressman, though Congress as a whole is more powerful than the President. It reminds me of the prisoner's dilemma a little bit.

I think it's also partly due to the extreme form of individualism the US loves. It's always about singular people, and the president embodies that perfectly. When I compare the importance of ministers in a parliamentary cabinet to the US president's cabinet, the president's are essentially irrelevant.

rumborak

This also makes some sense to me, but this would be true even in a parliamentary system.

[ResultsMayVary]

The executive branch has become all too powerful. That's what this tells us. That's why every year it's "the most important election ever" because they have power of more and more things.

This.

It almost makes the other elections irrelevant. Almost.

[El Barto]

The executive and the legislature should be power-equals (and the judiciary,  IMO).  Neither should be superior.  However,  there are 535 members of the legislature,  and only 1 president who's equal to them all.  If you want to compare offices,  they're equal,  but comparing individuals is no contest.  Any single congressman is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things,  and one Obama is equal to all of them collectively. 

[Scheavo]

The executive and the legislature should be power-equals (and the judiciary,  IMO).  Neither should be superior.  However,  there are 535 members of the legislature,  and only 1 president who's equal to them all.  If you want to compare offices,  they're equal,  but comparing individuals is no contest.  Any single congressman is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things,  and one Obama is equal to all of them collectively. 

So:

It's a fundamental problem with our splitting of the Executive and Legislative branches

?

[jsem]

The executive branch has become all too powerful. That's what this tells us.

Really though? Obama couldn't pass health care reform in the fashion he wanted, he couldn't pass financial reform in the way he wanted, he couldn't close Guantanamo, he couldn't raise taxes on the Rich, etc, etc, etc.

Please. He never wanted to pass universal healthcare or anything, else he would've fought for it. They have what, well over 50 senators that would've agreed to at least the public option but he watered it down so that he could get 60 and bypass a filibuster. But under Bush/Cheney, they passed everything they wanted with like 51 senators, because they actually cared about getting stuff through.

Some progressives may see Dodd/Frank as something monumental or whatever, Obama goes around banging his chest about "toughest financial reform since Glass-Steagall". I just LOL at that. Obama doesn't have anyone but the bankers interest in mind.

He could've closed Guantanamo if he wanted to, but he's afraid of looking weak on security. Now, he's not going to release half the detainees there, and they've already been cleared for release!

Raising taxes on the rich? I'm not sure he would've if he could've. He can't because of the anti-tax sentiment in congress but I'm not sure he would've actually fought for it if he could've.

No progressive should vote for him because of the "lesser of two evils" BS.

[hefdaddy42]

The executive and the legislature should be power-equals (and the judiciary,  IMO).  Neither should be superior.  However,  there are 535 members of the legislature,  and only 1 president who's equal to them all.  If you want to compare offices,  they're equal,  but comparing individuals is no contest.  Any single congressman is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things,  and one Obama is equal to all of them collectively. 

So:

It's a fundamental problem with our splitting of the Executive and Legislative branches

?

It's not a problem at all, fundamental or otherwise.  That's the way it was designed to be.

[El Barto]

The executive and the legislature should be power-equals (and the judiciary,  IMO).  Neither should be superior.  However,  there are 535 members of the legislature,  and only 1 president who's equal to them all.  If you want to compare offices,  they're equal,  but comparing individuals is no contest.  Any single congressman is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things,  and one Obama is equal to all of them collectively. 

So:

It's a fundamental problem with our splitting of the Executive and Legislative branches

?

It's not a problem at all, fundamental or otherwise.  That's the way it was designed to be.

Correct.  It's just a matter of perception. 

[kirksnosehair]

Please. He never wanted to pass universal healthcare or anything, else he would've fought for it.

And yet, the healthcare bill he DID get passed has now resulted in 2.5 million MORE children being covered by healthcare insurance and anyone with a pre-existing condition cannot, by law, be refused coverage.  No, it's not universal care, and it's far from perfect, but name me a single improvement to healthcare insurance law passed in this country by Republicans in the last 20 years.

They have what, well over 50 senators that would've agreed to at least the public option but he watered it down so that he could get 60 and bypass a filibuster. But under Bush/Cheney, they passed everything they wanted with like 51 senators, because they actually cared about getting stuff through.

Look, not offense, man, but that is patently absurd.  Bush/Cheney got things passed largely due to the support of the "Blue Dog" Democratic bloc in congress.  These are fiscally conservative, socially liberal Democrats who typically sided with the Bush/Cheney agenda on fiscal policy, and their numbers (between 15 and 20) FAR exceed the numbers of moderate Republicans, which is about 5 max.  You do some very elementary math and you understand why it was easier for Bush/Cheney to push through legislation than it is for Obama who faces a completely, 100% united Republican opposition...something Bush/Cheney NEVER faced on the Democrat side.  It's got nothing to do with how much or how little Obama "cares" about getting legislation passed.  You can't possibly know how much he "cares" about scratching his ass, never mind how much he "cares" about getting legislation passed.

Some progressives may see Dodd/Frank as something monumental or whatever, Obama goes around banging his chest about "toughest financial reform since Glass-Steagall". I just LOL at that. Obama doesn't have anyone but the bankers interest in mind.

Right, because the Dodd/Frank bill does absolutely nothing to regulate the financial industry, right?     Can you name a single provision in Dodd/Frank?  I'm guessing you can't.  But here, educate yourself.  Please.  It's an excellent piece of legislation.  Perfect?  No.  But it DOES go a long way towards helping to impose more regulations on the financial sector.  Republicans don't hate it for no reason.

He could've closed Guantanamo if he wanted to, but he's afraid of looking weak on security. Now, he's not going to release half the detainees there, and they've already been cleared for release!

In related news, the sky is falling.  Look, which side are you taking here?  First you say he "could have closed it if he wanted to" then you seem to be complaining that he's cleared half (it's not half, by the way, again, those facts are pesky things!) of the prisoners there.  So which is it?  You want him to close it?  Or not?

Raising taxes on the rich? I'm not sure he would've if he could've. He can't because of the anti-tax sentiment in congress but I'm not sure he would've actually fought for it if he could've.

Pure, 100% speculation with absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever.  Obama has articulated over and over again and again and again, his desire to raise taxes on the rich, but he faces a 100% united opposition in the House of Representatives.  That's beyond his control.  Period.   You DO understand that he's lowered taxes for the middle class as much, if not more, than Bush did?

No progressive should vote for him because of the "lesser of two evils" BS.

So, what do you propose we do?  Vote for Romney?  Write someone in? Do you understand the ramifications of that?  Do you think a Republican like Romney would be better?  Please.  The only "BS" I see here, frankly, is what you've posted here that I've quoted.

You are definitely entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[Scheavo]

The executive branch has become all too powerful. That's what this tells us.

Really though? Obama couldn't pass health care reform in the fashion he wanted, he couldn't pass financial reform in the way he wanted, he couldn't close Guantanamo, he couldn't raise taxes on the Rich, etc, etc, etc.

Please. He never wanted to pass universal healthcare or anything, else he would've fought for it. They have what, well over 50 senators that would've agreed to at least the public option but he watered it down so that he could get 60 and bypass a filibuster. But under Bush/Cheney, they passed everything they wanted with like 51 senators, because they actually cared about getting stuff through.

This is bizarre to me. The Republicans in the Senate refused to go along with pretty much anything Obama wanted to do, from day one. This has nothing to do with Obama, and there's no much Obama could actually do to force those Republicans to not filibuster (beyond threats of violence, which would be far worse). It wasn't a "choice" by Obama, it was simply what he could get passed. The reason Bush was able to pass laws with 51 senators was because you didn't have an obstinate Democratic party filibustering everything they didn't like. It's just mind blowing to me that you can somehow put this on Obama, and acting as if it's a matter of "caring" enough. Could he have done more to fight for it? Possibly, but considering we only hear the President when the media wants us to, I'm not going to say that the problem was Obama hiding.

In all honesty, what is it that you think he could have done, given what he had? THe House, during his first two years, passed a LOT of progressive legislation, it all died in the senate because of 40 obstinate Republicans.

Some progressives may see Dodd/Frank as something monumental or whatever, Obama goes around banging his chest about "toughest financial reform since Glass-Steagall". I just LOL at that. Obama doesn't have anyone but the bankers interest in mind.

You do realize Obama doesn't write the laws, or control the legislative process, don't you? Obama could be a sell out, or he could be an honest person working with a completely corrupt congress that he doesn't control. Also, the Consumer Protection Bureau would be a major player in national politics, but Republicans are trying to kill the Bureau unofficially, and refused to let Obama nominate Elizabeth Warren to the post.

Raising taxes on the rich? I'm not sure he would've if he could've. He can't because of the anti-tax sentiment in congress but I'm not sure he would've actually fought for it if he could've.

What are you talking about? He didn't want to extend the Bush Tax Cuts, he compromised to extend them becuase he's a pragmatic politician. He made a public address to the people about his tax policy, and it involved asking the rich to pay more. Now, in Congress, Democrats and Obama still want to raise revenue from the rich (the extenuation of the payroll tax cut was goin to be funded by a minute surcharge on millionaires), but Republicans blocked that from going anywhere.

Basically, you're entire argument is displaying the kind of thing I'm talking about in this thread. People act as if the President has more power than he actually has, they ignore his constitutional role, and they act as if he's part of the legislative branch - when he is not. You basically have to prove that Obama is a complete fraud, that everything he he said, and everything that he has ever said publicly, is a complete lie. It's rather conspiratorial to even go there, and the burden of proof lies upon you. "Proof" is not what the government does, because Obama is not the government, and the legislative branch is structurally far more powerful, and far more important, than the President. The debates in the Constitutional Convention were focused almost entirely upon the Legislative Branch, and what powers they could have; the executive got a decent amount of attention, but no where near as much as the legislative.

[kirksnosehair]

I disagree with you frequently Scheavo, but here we are definitely on the same page.

[Scheavo]

The executive and the legislature should be power-equals (and the judiciary,  IMO).  Neither should be superior.  However,  there are 535 members of the legislature,  and only 1 president who's equal to them all.  If you want to compare offices,  they're equal,  but comparing individuals is no contest.  Any single congressman is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things,  and one Obama is equal to all of them collectively. 

So:

It's a fundamental problem with our splitting of the Executive and Legislative branches

?

It's not a problem at all, fundamental or otherwise.  That's the way it was designed to be.

Correct.  It's just a matter of perception.

The President has become the scapegoat for everything and anything that goes on in Congress, and that's not an intention of the Constitution.

[Progmetty]

Could there be a "celebrity" factor in it too? Some people still dunno the name of the drummer from the Beatles yet everybody knows Elton John. It's the spotlight. Being singled out and having your "singling out" process be such a massive focus of the entire planet as it happens could be the reason why. A lot of people dunno the name if their congressman but nobody doesn't know the name of the president.

[Riceball]

We talk about this fascination with leadership at work quite often. Even in Australia's political system, which has the Queen as a token figurehead executive branch, all of the attention is on Abbitt v Gillard. All of the action happens in a parliamentary setting, so there's no strategic games between the leg. and the exec.

In my mind, its largely to do with the media, or the celebrity factor metty refers to. The media trades in simplicity these days, and so the simplest way to sell a story is to give the issues a face and a name, whuch generally means a binary comparison of the leaders. The political systems relies on the media to sell its messages, and so it evolves in line with what the media demands.

That's my theory, anyway.

[jsem]

No progressive should vote for him because of the "lesser of two evils" BS.

So, what do you propose we do?  Vote for Romney?  Write someone in? Do you understand the ramifications of that?  Do you think a Republican like Romney would be better?  Please.  The only "BS" I see here, frankly, is what you've posted here that I've quoted.

Vote for someone other than a Democrat or a Republican.
There's a guy called Rocky Anderson running for president, I think you ought to check him out.

Blah blah blah, if enough people vote outside the two party system blah blah. You get the point.

[kirksnosehair]

No progressive should vote for him because of the "lesser of two evils" BS.

So, what do you propose we do?  Vote for Romney?  Write someone in? Do you understand the ramifications of that?  Do you think a Republican like Romney would be better?  Please.  The only "BS" I see here, frankly, is what you've posted here that I've quoted.

Vote for someone other than a Democrat or a Republican.
There's a guy called Rocky Anderson running for president, I think you ought to check him out.

Blah blah blah, if enough people vote outside the two party system blah blah. You get the point.

But see, I have to live in reality.  And the reality is, there are going to be precisely two candidates with any chance of actually winning.  Obama will be the Democratic nominee and probably Romney will be the Republican nominee. 

One of those two people is going to be elected.  As I've mentioned here many times, the primary deciding factor for me, personally, is the type of supreme court and federal appellate court appointees the president will select.  Despite the fact that Republicans have filibustered an unprecedented number of Obama appointees, he has an excellent track record with respect to the justices he has been nominating to the bench so at this time I see no reason to siphon off a vote for the guy I want to win in order to make some political statement that, frankly, no one is going to hear or take notice of.

When I was a kid like you (and I don't refer to you that way in a condescending tone, I am envious of your youth) I was also very idealistic.  But as I've gotten older, I have become more resigned to the realities of our political system.  It is what it is.  And what it is is this:  A two party system. 

[jsem]

Move to Switzerland.

[kirksnosehair]

Why would I do that?  I love it here.

[snapple]

Executive branch - One guy is the poster boy
Legislative branch - 437 (I think, it's too early and not enough booze) members at the federal level
Judicial branch - 9 members at the federal level.

There is an old saying I love "the President gets too much flak when something goes wrong, and too much praise when something goes right". Same could be said for football coaches.

[Super Dude]

All of the partisan politics and debate aside, humanity is used to embodying their nations/cultures symbolically in a single person. The President of the United States is no exception.

Let's just say this: when you think of the "face" of England, does your mind immediately go to the Parliament? Or does it go to the Queen or some other royal family member? My bet would be on the latter. They may not make any real political decisions, but people look to their king to lead, and so they do in the US as well.

Edit: And also because it's easier to remember one face to blame rather than several.

[Scheavo]

The Speaker of the House is one person. For all the reasons people have given, that it's easier to put the blame on one guy, why then does it not fall more to the Speaker of the House? There's no reason it to be the President who we single out, especially given his actual power, constitutional and super-constitutional as it may be.

[Super Dude]

Because I only read the OP and a couple of the "executive is too big" posts. My bad.

Although it could be the fact that he is both a single man (or hopefully someday, woman) and the face of our country. Remember he is leader of the free world, meaning diplomatically speaking the President represents us and our allies (well, mainly just us) in relation to other nations.

[Scheavo]

Why is it all or nothing, though? We can judge the President based upon his foreign policy, and still not make everything domestic his responsibility. We are not other nations. Domestically, we should be looking at Congress, and the leaders within congress, because they're the ones making and passing the laws that actual effect us - the President can simply veto or sign the bills, and then enforce them.

In the next election, the talk is going to be mostly about the President, when it seems to me that that's a sideshow. If we elected Jefferson as President, it wouldn't mean jackshit with the Congress we have. Unless the discussion turns to how we need to change Congress (which Obama has made some indication he might, oh please say he does), then we're basically goin to be having the exact same discussion with whoever we elect.

[Super Dude]

Of course and I completely agree with you. I see it myself as an example of the human tendency towards ignorance, laziness and idiocy, and the American excellence at each. You try telling hundreds of millions of people to change the way they think about and understand their government.