Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Thought Experiment: Congress for the White House?
If you were given the choice, would you accept winning the White House in 2016 at the cost of losing both houses of Congress? For the sake of argument, assume the numbers for Congress would mirror what they are right now.
Please give a “yes” or a “no” as the first word of your answer, followed by as much explanation as you see fit. If you’re 51% in favor of the proposition and 49% against, that’s a “yes.” Explain, if you wish, after your answer.
Note: this is not about the interaction between different slots on the ticket or any of that. Never mind about a proposed mechanism — there isn’t one.
Published in Politics
I want all the branches.
Fascist. ;-)
Yes, the presidency is the better of the two options if one has to choose.
< cynicism mode = on >
Obama has already drawn the roadmap for the Executive State, so who needs Congress?
< cynicism mode = off >
Fascist, or tree-hugger?
That’s not fair, BDB. I’d trade this congress for a bag of magic beans and whatever’s behind door #2.
I would rather take a super majority of congress in all honesty with conservative discipline. The issue was the time from 1913 through 1944 (not blaming Calvin Coolidge, just the progressive movement that permeated the time and set up the current system) saw the federal government become what it is today and that meant efficiency in achieving the goals of the state trumped deliberation and the executive branch categorically cannot have division (so no inefficiency) and since FDR was a narcissist he took the power for “the good of the people” from his own party’s congress (which meant they had more time to mess around).
The ultimate solution will require us holding both branches of government and at least 60% of both houses in the legislature. That is why this election is pretty darn important, if we have a charismatic and conservative candidate then we can both win the white house and maybe even get that 60 seats in the senate with a good coat tail effect and hold the house.
With that dominance and disciplined focus we could accomplish a significant repeal of the leftist project. The only issue is that the leftist project is massive and the results from repealing may be limited due to how many leftist regulations overlap one another (an example is minimum wage and the federal reserve). It will take probably at least 20-30 years to fully undo leftism and that requires patience to endure the long haul. Can we do that?
In a proper constitutional republic, I would always take Congress, given that up to now, we could count on the President to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
However, given President Obama’s refusal to follow the constitutional limits of his office, such as to not declare amnesty on his own, and to go back to Congress for fixes to Obamacare, I am compelled to say the Presidency.
Obama has truly violated the terms of his office, and there must be a housecleaning, and revocation of his excessive executive orders.
A very sad state of affairs.
No, but we need a congress with backbone that insists every bill passed moves the meter to the right, not just a little bit left, that is unafraid to use the power of the purse, since that is the constitutional method to control a rogue president, short of impeachment.
Absent this, just having a president without congress fails, the needle moves leftward, just at best at a slower pace. It took the left over a hundred years to get where we are, and we need to start playing the long game as well, and insist the needle always go right, even if only a little sometimes, but never goes left at all.
Yes.
Appointing Antonin Scalia’s replacement. While the replacement must be approved by the Senate, the American public will not handle too much refusal to approve Supreme Court justices. (The public often does not hear about lower court appointees, and therefore, does not care.)
No. He’s wrong on one issue (albeit a big one.) ACU gives him a lifetime rating of 98.
There’s actually a small part of me that thinks getting played by Schumer might actually work in his favor; he, probably better than anyone, knows that the (in BDB’s scenario) Senate Majority Leader can’t be trusted. It’s a gamble, but it’s possible.
—–
To answer the OP: It depends on the candidate, but given the current field I’d say “Yes” for all but a handful of candidates. Trump and Kasich are the two that spring to mind, but I’m probably forgetting someone.
The biggest problem we face domestically is the administrative state. Because this falls under the executive branch, the President can fix most of this without having to get Congress’s permission.
If the Democrat Congress affects my choice it’d be to make me less likely to support Carson, as he lacks both political experience and negotiating skills. Dealing with a hostile Congress requires one or the other.
Yes.
Purely an instinctual conclusion. We need a dominant conservative leader. Even if we have the minority in both chambers, having a strong voice, with the confidence to inject “our” policy into all matters of global affairs will give the conservative leaders in Congress a General to fight for. If we have a leader that will not back peddle and is willing to punch you in the throat when you cross the “line in the sand,” the rest of us can handle a Pelosi or Reid with ease.
So with the magic number of 42 responses, the results so far are fairly consistent.
21 vote Yes, they would give up control of Congress, accepting a reversal of the recent record-breaking dominance, if that meant gaining the White House.
7 vote No (including me right now), we would not accept the White House if it meant giving up Congress.
4 stated no preference or rejected the hypothetical.
The NO contingent is BrentB67, Beergeek, Matty Van, Z in MT, Could Be Anyone, John Hanson, and myself. With a group this small, I noted key reasons, which were centered around words like discipline, constitution, backbone, and conveyed the idea that the Congress if properly used should be able to constrain a president.
The YES crowd also commented consistently about the constitutional structure as intended to give far greater power to Congress than we see it exercise today. So some tongue in cheek, and some quit earnestly say that Obama has demonstrated how to wield an Executive that is supreme among branches. People answering either way indicate that the Presidency or this president has grown too powerful, and that Congress or this congress has ceded too much.
Other respondents said that they preferred both, or all three, and while I join them in that sentiment, that wasn’t the question.
My original purpose in asking this (I asked a couple of people a month or two ago as well) was to illustrate either a contradiction or a well-defined choice on the part of people who seem to say that the GOP can’t do much, gotta have the Presidency, not their fault, let’s just be moderates and win for a decade, then spring conservatism on an unsuspecting public.
I would expect those who feel that having a crushing majority in the House and a wide majority in the Senate are so seemingly valueless to readily give up Congress and gain the Presidency. I’ll leave it to individuals to associate themselves with that position if they wish. I do see a preponderance of this response.
Yet I think that there is widespread agreement between the YES and the NO contingent that Congress’ weakness is more to blame than Obama’s strength. I certainly feel this way, and the way most people phrased their answers, on either side of the ledger, did not seem counter to that position.
I believe based on these responses that those who would prefer to keep Congress are likely more focused on fixing Congress and restoring some proper Constitutional functioning, whereas those who would give Congress up to gain the presidency are more resigned to the Constitution being bent out of shape, and that’s just the way it is.
I am reading much into this, but only very lightly, and welcome any corrections.
My problem is that if they do take the presidency and hold onto Congress, the “leadership” (feh) will tell us with a straight face that they can’t push anything through without supermajorities.
For me it’s about priorities; the regulatory state is our #1 problem domestically speaking. Congress can’t do anything about it except pass bills which a Dem president will veto. A conservative chief executive can clean house within the executive branch without having to go through Congress. That’s the silver lining; if the making of rules is delegated to the executive branch then the executive can unmake them (and if the bureaucrats don’t like it, they can resign.)