I'm sure you're all aware of the current crisis in which the government is in. Once again, the Republicans are attempting to repeal the Affordable Care Act by means of a government shutdown, and it looks as if it is going to happen. This comes down to one thing; failure of the executive to find compromise. Within this theory I am detailing, I will utilize Robert Dahl's Who Governs and Weber's Politics as a Vocation.
In Robert Dahl's case study of New Haven, which is outlined in his aforementioned book, he attempts to break down what a functioning democracy looks like in America. Dahl was attempting to explain American politics on a local level, but one which would have valid applications at the federal level. Even though this was written in 1960, it still has many similarities to this day and age. Weber, in his work, breaks down what a good, natural leader should look like in a democracy, and it seems valid especially when considering red pill literature.
Why is the Executive Branch Failing?
Doesn't it seem like the executive branch is powerless in such a situation as the one we have today? Well this is due to the intrinsic failure of the executive to find compromise. Democracy, as described by Dahl, is comprised of four section:
The Executive, Political Parties, Interest Groups, and the Electorate.
The failure of the executive comes down to one thing; failure to find consensus amongst these groups, especially between the interest groups. Obama fought against "the big businesses" in many of his campaign slogans, but this was empty rhetoric which actually hurt him in the long run. In the case study of New Haven, Dahl mentioned that Mayor Lee actually wooed business owners and local economic powers to his side (he was a Democrat, they Republican), promising change which would benefit all sides. This, however, was not piecemeal change but in fact much larger issues such as urban renewal, education and healthcare. He was successful in most of these due to the sole fact that he acted as more of an arbitrator or a negotiator rather than a partisan.
This is how the executive should act in a democracy; unaffected by petty partisan struggles, finding a compromise which benefits both sides to some extent and finding the common good (which in this case would be majority consensus). Partisanship should be eliminated at the executive level, and the President in this case should act as more of a chief negotiator between these parties, one who is respected by all.
Obamacare (ACA) was a massive failure in the political sense due to lack of support by the economic elite. Without the businesses backing his plan, many of their employees were actually led to believe that this program was negative. In this case, the economic elite do in fact have a sway in the opinions of their employees. In order to find consensus in policy, he should have weighed the interests of the business who employ a very large amount of people without chastising them.
Petty partisan bickering does not achieve anything by itself, and having Obama on the side of the Democrats does not help with the problem. Having Obama as a neutral arbitrator between the two sides would be the most viable option here. There is a massive roadblock in this theory, however (how could you finance a viable campaign without the help of a political party with millions of dollars and equally, how can you get reelected after you abandon the party to become neutral?)
Of course this is nearly impossible this day and age, but Obama should take a page from Dahl's book and begin to act more as a moderator between these warring factions and stop siding with the parties, and find the common good of the majority population.
Feel free to add, gentlemen.
In Robert Dahl's case study of New Haven, which is outlined in his aforementioned book, he attempts to break down what a functioning democracy looks like in America. Dahl was attempting to explain American politics on a local level, but one which would have valid applications at the federal level. Even though this was written in 1960, it still has many similarities to this day and age. Weber, in his work, breaks down what a good, natural leader should look like in a democracy, and it seems valid especially when considering red pill literature.
Why is the Executive Branch Failing?
Doesn't it seem like the executive branch is powerless in such a situation as the one we have today? Well this is due to the intrinsic failure of the executive to find compromise. Democracy, as described by Dahl, is comprised of four section:
The Executive, Political Parties, Interest Groups, and the Electorate.
The failure of the executive comes down to one thing; failure to find consensus amongst these groups, especially between the interest groups. Obama fought against "the big businesses" in many of his campaign slogans, but this was empty rhetoric which actually hurt him in the long run. In the case study of New Haven, Dahl mentioned that Mayor Lee actually wooed business owners and local economic powers to his side (he was a Democrat, they Republican), promising change which would benefit all sides. This, however, was not piecemeal change but in fact much larger issues such as urban renewal, education and healthcare. He was successful in most of these due to the sole fact that he acted as more of an arbitrator or a negotiator rather than a partisan.
This is how the executive should act in a democracy; unaffected by petty partisan struggles, finding a compromise which benefits both sides to some extent and finding the common good (which in this case would be majority consensus). Partisanship should be eliminated at the executive level, and the President in this case should act as more of a chief negotiator between these parties, one who is respected by all.
Obamacare (ACA) was a massive failure in the political sense due to lack of support by the economic elite. Without the businesses backing his plan, many of their employees were actually led to believe that this program was negative. In this case, the economic elite do in fact have a sway in the opinions of their employees. In order to find consensus in policy, he should have weighed the interests of the business who employ a very large amount of people without chastising them.
Petty partisan bickering does not achieve anything by itself, and having Obama on the side of the Democrats does not help with the problem. Having Obama as a neutral arbitrator between the two sides would be the most viable option here. There is a massive roadblock in this theory, however (how could you finance a viable campaign without the help of a political party with millions of dollars and equally, how can you get reelected after you abandon the party to become neutral?)
Of course this is nearly impossible this day and age, but Obama should take a page from Dahl's book and begin to act more as a moderator between these warring factions and stop siding with the parties, and find the common good of the majority population.
Feel free to add, gentlemen.