This, by my friend Phil:
The term “president” was chosen by our founding fathers intentionally as one that did NOT mean “powerful.” The term had never been used of a head of state before. It originally meant “one who presides over an organized body”. It is a term akin to “moderator”. The modern American Presidency has unfortunately changed this original meaning. We now expect our “president” to be a powerful fixer, and candidates for a hundred years have fed into this. Do you know what happens to honest Presidential candidates who answer the question “What are you going to do about that?” honestly by saying
, “I can’t” or “I won’t” because that’s not the president’s job? They don’t even get nominated.
I would love to have a president who had the following as his/her presidential philosophy:
- He would do only what the Constitution says the president can do.
- She would only engage in war if she could get a full declaration of war from the congress. Otherwise, engagement in violent activities against other countries would be reserved only for absolute emergencies (and I realize that’s a large loophole – a declaration of war would still be required after the fact).
- He would veto any bill that had hidden in it a bunch of regulations or spending not specifically related to the bill’s purpose.
- She would work for all the people in our country, not just those who voted for her.
- He would set a tone that encouraged limitation of government activities and a shrinking of the cost of government.
- She would avoid lavish vacations; of course the president needs a break now and then like all of us, but extravagant, expensive trips would not be a normal behavior, especially in hard economic times.
- Once done with his term or terms, he would go back to a quiet private life and do something worthwhile and useful, quietly and without fanfare.
I can dream, can’t I?