Peter Jaques

Both Bush & Kerry have about half of the population's support, and the camps are extremely polarized. (I've seen news articles reporting domestic violence against partners who were planning to vote for Kerry.) Leaders in a democracy are supposed to represent their constituency (in this case, the entire nation). Yet how can either of these two candidates really represent the 49% who adamantly, passionately opposed him? I'm close to the point of renouncing my citizenship should Bush gain a second term, so strongly do I oppose every single thing he's done (almost literally, I mean it). Yet if he's elected again tomorrow, he's my president, and he can bomb the world in my name as he pleases, unless I actually go hand in my passport & expatriate. (Unfortunately, even then he'd still bomb the world.)

In a body such as Congress, a tight race here and there for a seat is generally balanced out somewhat by the limited power of each member, and by the likelihood that some other Congressperson has views similar to the one defeated in the tight race. As a whole, then, Congress is forced to compromise, and there's an at-least-theoretical opportunity for most citizens to have a voice in governance.

The Presidency, of course, has no such built-in compromise mechanism. No one, not the cabinet (appointed by the President) nor the Vice President (presumably a close ideological ally of the President anyway), can influence the President's decisions as an equal. Once he makes a decision, that's the voice of the executive branch. (Partisan note: Bush Jr., in particular, seems loath to ever reexamine the facts before him, much less admit mistakes. There were no fucking weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, George. You overthrew a sovereign government on false pretenses. Yet the millions of Americans protesting his war had no real power to stop him from commanding the armed forces to bomb ancient cities and kill thousands of civilians. Even Congress could only threaten to tighten the purse strings, which they ultimately opened wide anyway.)

The Presidency of the United States is an obsolete office. It perhaps made sense when we were a country of 13 states and a few million people, with little global power. Even then, that was a lot of power in one man's hands. But now, the power that rests with the US President is downright imperial. One man is in direct control of the deadliest military in history. He also has enormous power over the richest economy in the world (I think it's the richest, right?), a covert action apparatus in the CIA which has historically destroyed several foreign governments, and a diplomatic corps that determines profound global alliances. No one person should have that power. No one should be able to wield the US military according solely to his personal discretion.