Originally posted by agrysonSome do.
True, war, like many other things can't be governed by a committee. Indeed, despite the inherent problems, it makes sense that there is one person to act as the voice of foreign policy. A case in point is here in Europe, we have no collective voice or person that other nations to look to as the representative voice, which seriously reduces our clout i ...[text shortened]... t as a little too much power in one persons hands, but is that a view held by many Americans?
The President was originally the "executor of the will of the Congress," but the appearance -- and sometimes reality -- is that the President leads and the Congress follows.
As a single person, the President can make a case much more easily and rapidly than the Congress -- especially in the age of TV and sound-bites. The Congress has to spend a lot of time debating while the President has no such distraction (yes, he can act unilaterally within his powers).
So the Congress looks less decisive than the President, but in fact is probably making better decisions.
If Congress falls to in-fighting (which has happened a lot recently), then the President can expand his power considerably.
Originally posted by spruce112358Hmm, in the case of foreign policy I can see the advantages of a rapid response, but also the dangers. I don't want to say too much about Bush, but he's not the kinda guy who strikes me as diplomatic. Does the American public generally think the president holds too much power as an individual? Just a vox pop, see what the general feeling is.
Some do.
The President was originally the "executor of the will of the Congress," but the appearance -- and sometimes reality -- is that the President leads and the Congress follows.
As a single person, the President can make a case much more easily and rapidly than the Congress -- especially in the age of TV and sound-bites. The Congress has to s ...[text shortened]... ing (which has happened a lot recently), then the President can expand his power considerably.