Although a democracy is one of the most celebrated ways of running a country in this day and age, the immense power that is acquired by the President of the United States of America or another democracies’ president is often able to ruin the power of the system as a whole. The main problem lies within the widespread view of what a president should be; strong. The people of the country; the citizens; the voters, want to know that their leader is a strong individual, ready to face any challenge that they world is able to throw at them. Unfortunately, this ideal view of what a leader should be puts a tremendous strain upon the decision making skills of that particular leader. Wanting to be viewed as strong and capable of protecting their country, American presidents in the past have overstepped their boundaries and headed into the gray areas of despotism. Both Richard Nixon and George Bush stepped over the thin line of their presidential power and committed more troops to a never-ending war, even as the public protested violently. Even with the many positive impacts democracy has made across the world, once a leader is known to be the highest power, overturning their bad decisions becomes a struggle and despotism prevails.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree, I thought that I should take it one step further and also mention how FDR attempted to pass the "court-packing plan" in order to command the affirmation of his New Deal. I absolutely agree that we as a nation have constantly reached the threshold of despotism in the name of blind power, but in some cases the power of the president requires that individual to make a plan to bring the nation out of a depression. The distinction must be made between my point and despotism; if the leader steps down from that power, and allows the checks and balances of the rest of the governmental structure to limit irrational choices, then despotism remains dormant in a democracy. Well done Kaitlin!
ReplyDeleteI love how when I made a correction on my comment after I posted it, it just says, "Sebastian Wooding said... / This post has been removed by the author."
ReplyDeleteBefore reading your argument, I hadn't really thought much about American presidents being despots because of the checks and balances system; however, you make a very good point. Many presidents have overstepped their boundaries and have tried to throw off the checks and balances system for more personal power and personal gain. Though they may not have been complete despots because Congress and the Supreme Court still maintained some power, they certainly would have had complete control over the country were it not for the checks and balances system.
ReplyDelete