You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Democratic Socialist in our Government
Wait, do you NOT want somebody in the government to work against the president, but do you want all of them to work for him? That kind of sounds like a dictatorship, to be honest
I mean, I agree that appointed members of the executive probably should "follow orders" most of the time, after all bureaucrats working against the President is kind of the definition of the undemocratic "deep state". But certainly elected members of Congress have every right to work against the President, that is kind of their job, to be a check and balance.
I really do enjoy our interactions and I think we both learn something from the other side. Absolutely elected officials have the responsibility to work against the president if they disagree. Most of the government however is made up of unelected, supposedly non-partisan people. These people do not have the right to choose sides. These people should be held accountable to support the current administration, whether it be republican, democrat, socialist, or the complete dumb-ass party. But working against the president should be left up to those that we elect.
I agree, unelected officials working against democratically elected officials is kind of a mini coup. If for some reason literally Hitler was in power and he tries to start a war with Russia, would I want a coup, or unelected officials preventing that war? Hell yeah. But unless it's literally situations of life and death like that, they should just do their job.
I think the problem of unelected buraucrats is an important one, there's politicians who literally said on national TV that "If the President does this or that, the CIA has 7 ways to get back at him until sunday morning". I think that's because while the head of the CIA may be appointed by the President, that head then appoints his own underlings, who appoint their own underlings etc. It's kind of like feudalism in the middle ages: Because there's power conflicts between each level, that distorts what agenda is actually implemented. The solution to that could be that parliament, or the House in the US, directly appoints lower positions in each department, who they can also fire. They'd probably do that via committees. I think it would make more sense to give this power to parliament because the President simply doesn't have the time to really delve into the weeds of which officer did what, and who should be appointed to which relatively minor position, meanwhile there's 435 House members. Oh, and I also prefer parliamentary power over Presidential control because one person can't truly represent 330 million people, 435 can come way closer, and when 435 people share power there's less likelyhood of funny business going on than when you give power to one guy.
Talking to you really makes me understand conservatives better, and also makes me see problems I haven't seen before clearer, because you genuinely seem like an intellectually honest person trying to make an honest argument, unlike many other people on both sides (and the center). If you want to, you can check out my blog here, I think you will probably find it pretty interesting, and possibly even agree with quite a lot of my general points on world views and such. This one is one of my better ones, in my opinion https://steemit.com/politics/@politikhos/it-doesn-t-matter-how-smart-you-are-if-you-want-to-know-how-the-world-works-you-got-to-take-in-new-information