The American Family
Okay, so I've had to listen to a lot of people talking about how "President Obama" (or Bush, or whoever) should do this, how the President should do that... and they never realize that the President is just one person. We call him the most powerful man in the world, but his powers are limited. It is a deliberate limitation, built into the Constitution from the very beginning, and it's referred to as the separation of powers.
I woke up with an analogy in mind to try to explain it, and I'd like to share it with you: America as a family. Please note that I'm fully aware that not all families are like this, but no analogy is perfect, and I think that the kind of family dynamic that I'm describing here is fairly typical for a traditional two-parent US family.
Here are the players: the husband, the wife, the kids, and the old family friend.
The President is the husband. He's listed in the official records as the head of household, he's traditionally considered the decision maker, but in order to be happy, he's got to keep the rest of the family happy. He's the official face of the family to society at large.
Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) is the wife. While the husband is the official head of household, it's her responsibility to take care of the family, which means setting the household budget, taking care of the kids, and generally tending to the family unit as a whole, keeping things together and flowing smoothly.
We the people are the kids. Our "parents" in the government set the rules and we have to live with them - but if we raise enough noise, those rules may be changed in our favor. And if we're unhappy enough, we can "run away from home" by voting out those in power and finding new "parents" who will do things the way we want them done.
The Supreme Court is the old family friend. "He" wants what is best for us as a family, and can help intervene when arguments get out of hand or when the husband and wife are making decisions that aren't what's best for the family.
Now, to follow that analogy, think about what would happen if the husband suddenly decided he wanted to pack up the kids, sell the house and move to Nevada. If the wife and kids agree and say "Hey, yeah, let's all move to Nevada!" then it's all good. Everybody starts packing, the house goes on the market, and off they go to life in the Southwest.
But what happens if the wife doesn't want to move to Nevada? When two people get married, property (usually) becomes jointly owned. The husband can't sell the house without the wife's consent. He can't make her pack up the house - or for that matter prevent her from just unpacking if he decides to pack himself. And the kids may or may not want to move to Nevada themselves.
If he can enlist the kids' help, he can usually pressure the wife into going along with the move - but he's going to have to make some concessions. He may have to make sure that the new place has an extra bedroom so Johnny and Jimmy don't have to share a room any more to get them to go along with moving. He may have to agree to a home in Nevada that's farther from his new job so that they'll be in an area more convenient for the wife's errands and in a better school district so that the kids will have a better education. And he may need to call in the old family friend to provide a sounding board and provide an objective opinion about the relative merits of whether or not to go to Nevada.
But if the wife holds firm - if she doesn't want to go to Nevada, she wants to stay right here, or to move to Alaska instead - he can't make her do it and it's just not going to happen. It's a major change, and both partners have to come to an agreement for it to happen.
How does this relate to our government?
Because of our system of checks and balances, we have a President and not a dictator. He has a great deal of power and influence, but it's not unlimited, and if he exceeds those limits, he may wind up "divorced" from the American family by impeachment. He's also got to keep both the "kids" and the "wife" happy in order to get anything done. If Congress isn't happy, they have ways to stop him from doing things, such as refusing to pass his budget or vote in favor of his proposals, and can even kick him out of office if they can find enough evidence that the things he was doing were illegal. If the people are unhappy, they can refuse to vote for his reelection, pressure their legislators into opposing him, or cause civil unrest.
Alternately, if Congress is doing something that the President doesn't like, he has his ways of resisting their power. Congress is responsible for creating laws, but they are not laws until the President signs them, and he can choose not to do so by exercising his veto power. It will cost him goodwill from Congress, just like a husband telling his wife that she can't do something just because he says so will cost him goodwill within a marriage, but it can be done and has been done. He can also just refuse to enforce a law (the old "yes, honey, I'll get to that" tactic) although that's a risky proposition. Or he can call in the Supreme Court (our "old family friend" from the analogy above) to judge the constitutionality of a law that is being put through Congress and try to derail things that way.
The Constitution is a brilliant piece of writing, and nowhere is its brilliance better shown than in the system of checks and balances. It's a elegant solution to prevent both king-making and the tyranny of the masses, but it makes it really annoying (for me, at least) when people talk about how "the President should do this" and "the President is responsible for that" during election season. Because 95% of the time, it's not the president's fault and it's not within his power.
The President is the most powerful man in the world. But he's just one man, and his power is limited. Can we please try to remember that this election season, and place the blame - and the credit - where it belongs?
I woke up with an analogy in mind to try to explain it, and I'd like to share it with you: America as a family. Please note that I'm fully aware that not all families are like this, but no analogy is perfect, and I think that the kind of family dynamic that I'm describing here is fairly typical for a traditional two-parent US family.
Here are the players: the husband, the wife, the kids, and the old family friend.
The President is the husband. He's listed in the official records as the head of household, he's traditionally considered the decision maker, but in order to be happy, he's got to keep the rest of the family happy. He's the official face of the family to society at large.
Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) is the wife. While the husband is the official head of household, it's her responsibility to take care of the family, which means setting the household budget, taking care of the kids, and generally tending to the family unit as a whole, keeping things together and flowing smoothly.
We the people are the kids. Our "parents" in the government set the rules and we have to live with them - but if we raise enough noise, those rules may be changed in our favor. And if we're unhappy enough, we can "run away from home" by voting out those in power and finding new "parents" who will do things the way we want them done.
The Supreme Court is the old family friend. "He" wants what is best for us as a family, and can help intervene when arguments get out of hand or when the husband and wife are making decisions that aren't what's best for the family.
Now, to follow that analogy, think about what would happen if the husband suddenly decided he wanted to pack up the kids, sell the house and move to Nevada. If the wife and kids agree and say "Hey, yeah, let's all move to Nevada!" then it's all good. Everybody starts packing, the house goes on the market, and off they go to life in the Southwest.
But what happens if the wife doesn't want to move to Nevada? When two people get married, property (usually) becomes jointly owned. The husband can't sell the house without the wife's consent. He can't make her pack up the house - or for that matter prevent her from just unpacking if he decides to pack himself. And the kids may or may not want to move to Nevada themselves.
If he can enlist the kids' help, he can usually pressure the wife into going along with the move - but he's going to have to make some concessions. He may have to make sure that the new place has an extra bedroom so Johnny and Jimmy don't have to share a room any more to get them to go along with moving. He may have to agree to a home in Nevada that's farther from his new job so that they'll be in an area more convenient for the wife's errands and in a better school district so that the kids will have a better education. And he may need to call in the old family friend to provide a sounding board and provide an objective opinion about the relative merits of whether or not to go to Nevada.
But if the wife holds firm - if she doesn't want to go to Nevada, she wants to stay right here, or to move to Alaska instead - he can't make her do it and it's just not going to happen. It's a major change, and both partners have to come to an agreement for it to happen.
How does this relate to our government?
Because of our system of checks and balances, we have a President and not a dictator. He has a great deal of power and influence, but it's not unlimited, and if he exceeds those limits, he may wind up "divorced" from the American family by impeachment. He's also got to keep both the "kids" and the "wife" happy in order to get anything done. If Congress isn't happy, they have ways to stop him from doing things, such as refusing to pass his budget or vote in favor of his proposals, and can even kick him out of office if they can find enough evidence that the things he was doing were illegal. If the people are unhappy, they can refuse to vote for his reelection, pressure their legislators into opposing him, or cause civil unrest.
Alternately, if Congress is doing something that the President doesn't like, he has his ways of resisting their power. Congress is responsible for creating laws, but they are not laws until the President signs them, and he can choose not to do so by exercising his veto power. It will cost him goodwill from Congress, just like a husband telling his wife that she can't do something just because he says so will cost him goodwill within a marriage, but it can be done and has been done. He can also just refuse to enforce a law (the old "yes, honey, I'll get to that" tactic) although that's a risky proposition. Or he can call in the Supreme Court (our "old family friend" from the analogy above) to judge the constitutionality of a law that is being put through Congress and try to derail things that way.
The Constitution is a brilliant piece of writing, and nowhere is its brilliance better shown than in the system of checks and balances. It's a elegant solution to prevent both king-making and the tyranny of the masses, but it makes it really annoying (for me, at least) when people talk about how "the President should do this" and "the President is responsible for that" during election season. Because 95% of the time, it's not the president's fault and it's not within his power.
The President is the most powerful man in the world. But he's just one man, and his power is limited. Can we please try to remember that this election season, and place the blame - and the credit - where it belongs?