In what way is this exclusive to the presidency?Jebus wrote: Vietnam is a good example of how the US presidency fucked things up in a major way.
When it comes to passing laws in your country, the President is not more powerful than autocratic dictators such as Ali Khameini in Iran, Emmerson Mnangagwa in Zimbabwe or Isaias Afwerki in Eritrea. This is because of the checks of balances emposed on them by the constitution.
Using this logic, David Irving knows more than most people about the holocaust.
"I know you are but what am I?"
That wasn't what he was saying. His point was that the presidency could be a force for good.Oh, so countries without a president can't pass reforms that help the poor???
False.An executive order doesn't need congressional approval before going into effect. They can overturn it and I'm sure you know the process after that. That's why I used the USD as an example. By the time congress overturns the presidential veto the dollar could already be useless. This scenario is unlikely but possible. Either way, a simple comment from the POTUS can wreak havoc on the markets.
Do you think it is impossible for a government to have a broad power base and also a presidency? Germany, Iceland and Israel all have systems which guarantee a broader power base, namely an electoral system of proportional representation. These countries are all governed by a President.Americans will likely get smarter in the future but so will the citizens of other first world nations (possibly at an even faster rate). This will likely improve the quality of a president style government, but since you brought it up you should explain why this style of government would benefit from higher intelligence more than a government with a broader power base.
Which European countries are you thinking of? France has a presidency, Germany has a presidency, Italy has a presidency, Finland has a presidency, etc. Most of the European countries which don't have a presidency have a monarch as their head of state. Do you believe a monarchy would be better than a presidency?Isn't this discussion about the merits of a narrow power base (like the US or Russia) vs. a wide power base (like most European countries). If so, I think it is in order for you to demonstrate how the benefits of having a president outweighs the disadvantages. I'm not sure if you are unwilling or unable to do so. My guess would be unable.
Your arguments in favour of a broad power base appear to be much more in favour of the United States transitioning from a presidential republic to a semi-presidential republic rather than "abolishing the presidency".