Mandates of Power

McCain is going to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. McCain will effect a market solution for our market problems. Clinton will force everyone to pay for mandatory healthcare. Clinton will make civil unions federally protected institutions. Obama will raise taxes to astronomical rates. Obama will begin to get our troops out of Iraq as soon as he takes office.

These aren't exact statements out of the press or statements by the candidates, but they are all inferred and they are often the things we think as we compare these hopeful competitors, these executors presumptive. Yet, these voluminous floating statements - hopes and fears both - fly in the theoretical face of the politically scientific definitions of "executive". These ideas, the fears and hopes above stated are quite different than any theorist would put in the lap of any president, chancellor or prime minister. For the sake of novelty, differentiation and fun, these actions will be referred to as "presi-slative".

Democracy is a golden, shiny word we love to throw around in the western world, especially America. Voice of the People, we understand it to be and it is the heartstone of liberty. And the president is democracy's champion. Ironic that our president is the executive head of a federal republic and not a democracy. Not even directly elected by the Voice of the People, but elected by delegates, whose name we don't know, delegated loosely dependant on population and poll results. Not even, even supposed to be much of a decision making authority, just an executor of the will of congress.

It could be postulated that the bastion of democracy in our huge complicated system would be our legislature - directly elected representatives, half based on population, half based on region, who write and vote on our laws. And boy do we hate them - a quagmire of bribed, false, rich politician who write laws with pens loaned by their campaign financiers. We vote for them, when we think of it, and think of them as a necessary evil, then turn our thoughts back to the guy (or gal) who is gonna get it all done, the president. Montesquieu, let us be sure, is rolling over in his grave.

The point of the executive is that a separate (and lesser) authority executes the will of the "the people" (the representatives in congress). The "people" tell the president what they want done - laws, foreign policy and such - and the president figures out a way to get it done. To put it in a technical way, congress legislates bills and the president executes the legislation to the best of his or her ability and provision. Sometimes, legislators push a bill through into law that is either impossible or contrary to another law. That is where the executive branch is supposed to check the power of congress with presidential veto and advice on how to make the laws work better. Then the judiciary watches the president to make sure he or she is executing the laws as they were written.

At least that is how it is supposed to work.

What would happen to that system if the country selected executive candidates not based on faith to the will of the people but on their ability to initiate action, make powerful decisions and to take matters into their own hands. Their ability to push legislation into and through congress and their strategies to stack the judicial branch with their own people - you know - to streamline the process. What if the country chose to instate a Presi-slature?

Well, we would see tell-tale signs, wouldn't we? We would see a congress voting to give the executive "emergency powers" with vague time limits and foggy goals. You would see the executive being the Head of State, the symbol of the power of the country, the guy or gal other countries barter with to negotiate trade, and alliance (instead of a legislative head, like the Speaker of the House). We would hear more about presidential legislative proposals than about legislative proposals that originated in the House or Senate. We would see included in executive authority provisions for situational authority that would at the same time great and subject to interpretation (for example, authority to wage war without approval for a period of time). Finally, one of the most indicative signs of the institution of a Presi-slature would be an executive election campaigned on ideas of legislating change to the system. Otherwise interviews of presidential candidates might sound something like this:

"If you are elected president, what will be your first action?"
"Whatever congress tells me to do."
"Good boy."

It should not be derived from this article that a "Presi-slature" would be evil or even undesirable - that would be for the country to decide, but with the possible jeopardy of the liberty and voice of the people that we are so proud of, let's make sure we conscious of what we are actually voting for.