Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#41

Post by sorrymate »

lineindc wrote: post #34
nilkn wrote: post #23

The power of the Presidency has been slowly expanded over the last few centuries. Each time, when the power was expanded, it was done so under a President who seemed reasonable enough that nobody was afraid of what the change truly meant. They knew that their current President wouldn't abuse it, and they didn't think much further ahead than that. Many of these expansions of power were made for very short-term politic…

I have no stakes in here (I'm not American), but as far as I know, he's just doing what he promised he'd do if he got elected. What you're asking for is... to protect people from themselves? I don't understand.

A majority of voters did not actually vote for Trump. And a majority of voters laughed off his promises because nobody thought he would be elected.

The foundation of "checks and balances" in the United States was that we have representatives that would speak for the people. Those congressional representatives would move the ball forward. The president was never supposed to have the power to create unilateral policy. In a sense, the people need protection from someone they never wanted in the first place. The majority of Trumps views are held only by the minority. This is what people need protection from.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#42

Post by rbehrends »

lineindc wrote: post #34
nilkn wrote: post #23

The power of the Presidency has been slowly expanded over the last few centuries. Each time, when the power was expanded, it was done so under a President who seemed reasonable enough that nobody was afraid of what the change truly meant. They knew that their current President wouldn't abuse it, and they didn't think much further ahead than that. Many of these expansions of power were made for very short-term politic…

I have no stakes in here (I'm not American), but as far as I know, he's just doing what he promised he'd do if he got elected. What you're asking for is... to protect people from themselves? I don't understand.

A liberal democracy is not a tyranny of the majority (aka ochlocracy). Checks and balances exist, inter alia, to protect the minority who didn't vote for the president. (And in this case, possibly a majority.)

Plus, there's the problem of a gradual (or even sudden) erosion of checks and balances when one person has too much power and the distinct possibility that the electorate did not foresee all the long term consequences of getting such a person elected.

Of course, you may also go for Mencken's view that "democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." But that would require a fair amount of cynicism.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#43

Post by germinalphrase »

disease wrote: post #26

David Frum recently wrote a piece for the Atlantic outlining the likelihood of a "backsliding democracy" in the United States. I found it chilling: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-...

I didn't care so much for his opening narrative - but the later arguments about (potentially inadequate) check/balances definitely makes the article worth reading. It is indeed chilling to consider how quickly things could deteriorate if media/congressional opposition are coopted/made feckless.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#44

Post by DonaldFrump »

nilkn wrote: post #23

The power of the Presidency has been slowly expanded over the last few centuries. Each time, when the power was expanded, it was done so under a President who seemed reasonable enough that nobody was afraid of what the change truly meant. They knew that their current President wouldn't abuse it, and they didn't think much further ahead than that. Many of these expansions of power were made for very short-term politic…

I warned my conservative friends of this under Bush. I warned my liberal friends of this under Obama. Neither cared so long as their guy was in power, and both whined about every expansion of power when the other guy was in office. For the majority, no lessons will be learned.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#45

Post by ben010783 »

apo wrote: post #25

Bruce Ackerman, whose work was cited in the article, gave a dead-on analysis of the current situation in 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7lCgKfxmuQ He appears to be discussing certain points in his book, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic. Here are a few: - The rise of a dual-election system for president increases the likelihood of an extremist president. Imagine a political spectrum ranging from 1…

Can you explain that point on cabinet-level departments? I don't understand where Elizabeth Warren fits into that.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#46

Post by davidkellis »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #7
davidkellis wrote: post #5

Timing is suspect. We've known this for a long time.

How is it suspect? We now have a president with authoritarian tendencies, it makes sense to be worrying about this now.

There's nothing new here. It's been like this for a long time. One person's despot is another's savior, and vice versa.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#47

Post by [deleted] »

lineindc wrote: post #34
nilkn wrote: post #23

The power of the Presidency has been slowly expanded over the last few centuries. Each time, when the power was expanded, it was done so under a President who seemed reasonable enough that nobody was afraid of what the change truly meant. They knew that their current President wouldn't abuse it, and they didn't think much further ahead than that. Many of these expansions of power were made for very short-term politic…

I have no stakes in here (I'm not American), but as far as I know, he's just doing what he promised he'd do if he got elected. What you're asking for is... to protect people from themselves? I don't understand.

[deleted]

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#48

Post by big_youth »

lineindc wrote: post #34
nilkn wrote: post #23

The power of the Presidency has been slowly expanded over the last few centuries. Each time, when the power was expanded, it was done so under a President who seemed reasonable enough that nobody was afraid of what the change truly meant. They knew that their current President wouldn't abuse it, and they didn't think much further ahead than that. Many of these expansions of power were made for very short-term politic…

I have no stakes in here (I'm not American), but as far as I know, he's just doing what he promised he'd do if he got elected. What you're asking for is... to protect people from themselves? I don't understand.

In my social circles we are ecstatic that Trump is following through on his promises.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#49

Post by sdenton4 »

norea-armozel wrote: post #19
cryptarch wrote: post #18

Could someone tell me more about the American Enterprise Institute? They critique "Trump's executive-orders" situation, which a lot of organizations could do but they ended up in the Economist. They basically enter the picture like "we're an authority and we're saying stuff is bad, like we have an actual code for how bad it almost is". They're a conservative think-tank, they seem to have intelligence/military ties, s…

They're right to criticize any president when it comes to executive orders. The biggest flaw in them is that they lean heavily on implied powers which in itself is a hotly debated clause of the constitution. Anyone worth their salt on any part of the US political spectrum would oppose their overuse and abuse. Frankly, the fewer EOs any POTUS issues the better since each one expands the reach of the executive branch a…

And yet, I think a lot of the reason we've gotten here is congressional deadlock, with EOs and rules filling legislative voids. There was a decent chunk of the Obama presidency where Congress was incapable of passing anything more complicated than naming a day of recognition, and openly fluted with government shutdown repeatedly.

We've got a failed legislative system, and are now working ourselves toward a completely failed system of government.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#50

Post by hsod »

lineindc wrote: post #34
nilkn wrote: post #23

The power of the Presidency has been slowly expanded over the last few centuries. Each time, when the power was expanded, it was done so under a President who seemed reasonable enough that nobody was afraid of what the change truly meant. They knew that their current President wouldn't abuse it, and they didn't think much further ahead than that. Many of these expansions of power were made for very short-term politic…

I have no stakes in here (I'm not American), but as far as I know, he's just doing what he promised he'd do if he got elected. What you're asking for is... to protect people from themselves? I don't understand.

It's about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)
Post reply on HN