Putting a kink in the imperial presidency
p m carpenter | September 01, 2007
More and more I am persuaded that a chief flaw in our constitutional system of power separation is the absence of a parliamentary-style "Question Time," that regularly scheduled romp through blistering interrogation of a prime minister by lowly backbenchers. The practice may not ensure the best of governance at all times, nor always forthright accountability, but it does demand that the head of government be able to speak the native tongue with some passable level of coherence and articulate a defense of "executive" policies that won't be laughed out of the legislative chamber.
The practice also provides a constant readjustment of the relative standing between -- again, loosely speaking -- the executive and legislative. If he is unprepared, or if one of his policies is indeed indefensible, the prime minister can easily be made to look like a complete ass, unworthy of high office -- and all at the hands of the lowliest of lawmakers. An imperial prime ministry is a lot harder to pull off than an imperial presidency; there's always someone right in your face: questioning, pushing, exposing.
I've tried to imagine Mr. Bush standing before Congress once or twice a week for an hour or so, taking unsolicited questions from informed (and therefore naturally hostile) members of the opposition. The only image that comes to mind is a theatre of the absurd -- that, or a theatre of the "never was." I seriously doubt the Republican Party would ever have nominated such inarticulate witlessness way back in 2000 if it knew he'd be subject to these occasional grillings; I also doubt Mr. Bush would have sought such regular, public humiliation. The mere specter of a Question Time would have spooked George into permanent obscurity.
But imagine the contemporary benefits of a Question Time, or, alternatively, the downside of our not having one, which this report by the New York Times this morning got me to doing: "Beginning on Tuesday, when Congress returns from its August recess, lawmakers are prepared to debate what to do in Iraq in daily hearings that will culminate on Sept. 10 and Sept. 11 with appearances by the ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, and the military commander there, Gen. David H. Petraeus."
It's nice that Amb. Crocker and Gen. Petraeus will go before Congress to vomit remarks prepared and prepackaged by Mr. Bush's White House. But the "debate" in which Congress will engage will be a trifle one-sided, since the ultimate preparer and prepackager will be absent.
Instead, he will enjoy the safe haven of the isolated podium. He'll poke his empty head out of the Oval Office from time to time and read some idiotic emptiness on how self-interested lawmakers shouldn't politicize at home his political war abroad. He'll be utterly, wholly, safely protected from honest and piercing questions, which on his own, he'd never be able to answer. And God knows the Washington press corps won't ask them.
He'll say things like he said yesterday: "The stakes in Iraq are too high and the consequences too grave for our security here at home to allow politics to harm the mission of our men and women in uniform." He'll huff and puff and demagogue and dissemble -- and not once will those charged with authorizing or deauthorizing our pursuit of the impossible be allowed to put things to him clearly and forcefully and inescapably, and demand answers, right there on the literal boob tube, for all to see and cringe over.
As the Times further reported: "Mr. Bush chided lawmakers for calling for a change in policy before hearing the views of the two men who are, as administration officials repeatedly point out, 'on the ground in Iraq.'" Congress, in turn, should chide Mr. Bush for avoiding a direct-accountability session before it. He is, after all, the one man in charge. Congress deserves to hear his views directly -- not those merely of puppets.
But of course that will never happen. It's too sane -- meaning it's too perilous for you-know-who.
I do, however, believe that a pledge from some current presidential candidate to subject him- or herself to an Americanized version of Question Time would go over big with voters. As far as I know, there is nothing constitutionally prohibitive.
Such a pledge would indicate the candidate's willingness to retreat from the unaccountable imperial presidency whose development we've been made to suffer, and whose unchecked continuation will lead only to more cancerous growth.
p m carpenter | September 01, 2007
More and more I am persuaded that a chief flaw in our constitutional system of power separation is the absence of a parliamentary-style "Question Time," that regularly scheduled romp through blistering interrogation of a prime minister by lowly backbenchers. The practice may not ensure the best of governance at all times, nor always forthright accountability, but it does demand that the head of government be able to speak the native tongue with some passable level of coherence and articulate a defense of "executive" policies that won't be laughed out of the legislative chamber.
The practice also provides a constant readjustment of the relative standing between -- again, loosely speaking -- the executive and legislative. If he is unprepared, or if one of his policies is indeed indefensible, the prime minister can easily be made to look like a complete ass, unworthy of high office -- and all at the hands of the lowliest of lawmakers. An imperial prime ministry is a lot harder to pull off than an imperial presidency; there's always someone right in your face: questioning, pushing, exposing.
I've tried to imagine Mr. Bush standing before Congress once or twice a week for an hour or so, taking unsolicited questions from informed (and therefore naturally hostile) members of the opposition. The only image that comes to mind is a theatre of the absurd -- that, or a theatre of the "never was." I seriously doubt the Republican Party would ever have nominated such inarticulate witlessness way back in 2000 if it knew he'd be subject to these occasional grillings; I also doubt Mr. Bush would have sought such regular, public humiliation. The mere specter of a Question Time would have spooked George into permanent obscurity.
But imagine the contemporary benefits of a Question Time, or, alternatively, the downside of our not having one, which this report by the New York Times this morning got me to doing: "Beginning on Tuesday, when Congress returns from its August recess, lawmakers are prepared to debate what to do in Iraq in daily hearings that will culminate on Sept. 10 and Sept. 11 with appearances by the ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, and the military commander there, Gen. David H. Petraeus."
It's nice that Amb. Crocker and Gen. Petraeus will go before Congress to vomit remarks prepared and prepackaged by Mr. Bush's White House. But the "debate" in which Congress will engage will be a trifle one-sided, since the ultimate preparer and prepackager will be absent.
Instead, he will enjoy the safe haven of the isolated podium. He'll poke his empty head out of the Oval Office from time to time and read some idiotic emptiness on how self-interested lawmakers shouldn't politicize at home his political war abroad. He'll be utterly, wholly, safely protected from honest and piercing questions, which on his own, he'd never be able to answer. And God knows the Washington press corps won't ask them.
He'll say things like he said yesterday: "The stakes in Iraq are too high and the consequences too grave for our security here at home to allow politics to harm the mission of our men and women in uniform." He'll huff and puff and demagogue and dissemble -- and not once will those charged with authorizing or deauthorizing our pursuit of the impossible be allowed to put things to him clearly and forcefully and inescapably, and demand answers, right there on the literal boob tube, for all to see and cringe over.
As the Times further reported: "Mr. Bush chided lawmakers for calling for a change in policy before hearing the views of the two men who are, as administration officials repeatedly point out, 'on the ground in Iraq.'" Congress, in turn, should chide Mr. Bush for avoiding a direct-accountability session before it. He is, after all, the one man in charge. Congress deserves to hear his views directly -- not those merely of puppets.
But of course that will never happen. It's too sane -- meaning it's too perilous for you-know-who.
I do, however, believe that a pledge from some current presidential candidate to subject him- or herself to an Americanized version of Question Time would go over big with voters. As far as I know, there is nothing constitutionally prohibitive.
Such a pledge would indicate the candidate's willingness to retreat from the unaccountable imperial presidency whose development we've been made to suffer, and whose unchecked continuation will lead only to more cancerous growth.
