So I'm watching the news about Obama accepting the Nobel Peace Prize (despite the fact that he just decided to send 30,000 more troops into war). I am a HUGE Obama supporter, however I have no reservations about expressing my personal belief that the ONLY reason why he decided to send those 30k troops into Afghanistan is for political reasons. Obama's been labeled as weak/naive on foreign policy issues since Day One, and here was his chance to be Mr. Tough Guy and prove the naysayers wrong by sending 30,000 troops to war and hopefully win over Republicans and conservative independents in 2012, and also help members of his own party retain seats in next year's mid-term elections.
The point that I'm making here is that I do not believe that Obama wanted to send 1 troop to Afghanistan, let alone 30,000. He just had to do so for political purposes. And that's bullsh*t. But it's the same kind of political game that all presidents, Democrat or Republican, have to play. And seeing him make that decision, and on top of that accept a Nobel Peace Prize (keyword here: PEACE) really had me thinking - is the office of President of the United States TOO political?
I've taken a few political science classes in my time. One was called Comparative Politics. As the name implies, comparative politics is the study of, or the comparsion of, different political systems in different countries. In the class we compared the political systems of Britain, France, Germany, Mexico, Russia, India, Japan, and Nigeria with that of the United States. All political systems have their strengths and weaknesses of course, and all are reflections of the nations that they operate in and the circumstances in which they came to be.
With that being said, I like the German system the best - there is a bicameral national legislature comprised of two houses (the Bundestag and the Bundestrat). The Bundestag is the lower house and the Bundestrat is the upper house. Only the Bundestag consists of elected officials; members of the Bundestrat are appointed.
Germany also has a federal President and a Chancellor. The federal president serves as the head of state, but has little political power (almost like the Queen of England). The real power lies in the hands of the Chancellor. Neither the President nor the Chancellor is elected by the people. The Chancellor is elected by the Bundestag. In my opinion, herein lies the beauty of the German system - rather than letting the dumb a$$ average voter pick the Chancellor, the Bundestag does the dirty work. I know what you're thinking - why should we trust elected officials to pick the head honcho in the land? I will get back to that later. But let me also add that a unique twist to the German system makes it extremely difficult to remove the Chancellor - not only must the Bundestag file a vote of no confidence, but they must also simultaneously elect a successor. Right there on the spot. If that doesn't happen, there is no deal, Chancellor stays in office. Hence, the Chancellor of Germany has perhaps the most job security of anybody on the planet Earth.
It also means there is almost zero chance of something like the recall bullsh*t that happened in Calfornia in 2003 where the governor was removed from office mid-term with a simple petition. That, my friends, is TOO much democracy. If an elected official can't even complete his/her term for fear of being removed from office just for being unpopular, what's the point? The Office of President of the United States is almost as bad - the terms only last for four years, and as we are witnessing right now, as soon as someone's sworn into office they have to campaign for the next election. At what point is politics put to the backburner? Never in a place like the United States.
Getting back to the point of trusting elected officials to pick our head of state as opposed to allowing the people to do so directly - look, 99% of Congress are idiots (or corrupt, or both). I don't argue with that. But I believe that the even bigger idiots are the voters who keep re-electing these people into office. If they're such poor Congressmen, why not vote them out? You hate them, but you're the ones who put them there! I hardly blame politicians for screw-ups anymore, I blame the people who put such people into office.
Sir Winston Churchill once said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. People are retarded, they don't know what they want or what's best for them or for their country. And this is on both sides of the aisle; it crosses ideological lines.
So what do you all think? Is there TOO MUCH democracy in this country? Is it really such a good idea to leave the decision of who gets to lead the free world in the hands of Joe Sixpack?
Let's have a civil discussion here................I'm not really advocating this point, it's just something that crossed my mind today and I'm just playing devil's advocate for right now, so no personal attacks, please. It's just a thought.