What a President Can't Do

I know that presidential candidates have to make themselves seem invincible to win elections, but it is still depressing to watch.  If hell freezes over and I ever became a presidential candidate, I imagine blowing the election in a debate something like this:

Moderator:  "Mr. Croxton, when will your administration get unemployment below 6%?"
Me:  "Never."
Mod.:  "Never?"
Me:  "No, not my administration.  The president doesn't determine who works and who doesn't.  That's a decision made by millions of private individuals."
Mod.: "So you think the government has nothing to do with the economy?"
Me:  "Of course not, that would be absurd.  The federal government can do a great deal to hinder economic activity, and it can do a little to promote it.  But it makes no sense to speak of a president 'getting unemployment below 6%.'
  I will not promise what the unemployment rate would be because it is out of my control.  I will also not promise a certain rate of growth in the economy, or a rise in morals or personal happiness.  The president has only the vaguest influence over all of those.
  I can't even promise that crime will go down or that violence against America will cease, but I will promise that I will do everything possible to make sure we prosecute criminals and defend the country against attackers.
  Moreover, even the things I can do, I can't do all at once.  I will strictly limit the number of things that I promise to do on 'Day One' of my presidency.  I will keep a list and make sure I can do every item on it.  Some things will have to wait until day two, or three, or fifty-six.
  Most of the things a president can do by himself are very limited.  Congress is the most important branch of government, and as president I will not try to usurp its role.  I will continue to propose laws and submit budgets as other presidents have done in the last century, but I will not act as though Congress has a responsibility to do everything I want, and I will not now promise to do things that I know only Congress can do."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l...
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren...
Read more

My privileged life

I have just read the article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Level , and the comments, and the follow-up and its comments.  The author claims that straight white males (SWM, for short) don't like being told they are "privileged," so he is going to try to explain their advantages in terms they understand.  He then very condescendingly compares their lives to playing a game on the easiest difficulty level, whereas people in other categories have it harder, and black lesbians are playing on the hardest level of all. I understand that this is a metaphor, or an analogy.  I understand that it is not supposed to be a perfect model of reality.  There are, however, several reasons why I think it is a very poor and misleading metaphor. First of all, using the gaming-difficulty metaphor implies that SWMs have an easy life.  No one plays at the easiest level unless he is a total noob, and only college students with lots of time on their hands play at the hard...
Read more