[hownottowrite]

It's hardly ironic. It's realistic, and your defense is simplistic at best.

What does President Lessig do during the first 100 days of his Presidency if war breaks out? What if a natural disaster strikes putting millions of Americans at risk? We have no idea because his Presidency is not about governing towards a better future but rather tearing down a system he doesn't like.

Noble as his idea may sound on the surface it is a childish proposal which does not take into account the complexity of the system it intends to address.

[jack9]

> your defense is simplistic at best.

Defense of what?

> What does President Lessig do during the first 100 days of his Presidency if war breaks out?

He does what EVERY President does. 100 days or not (how are the # of days relevant? howabout 3! sounds a lot like political hand waving). What happens is surely that he makes a statement and the executive branch provides function. He's not a general, but he can make individual decisions just like any successor. His death or resignation doesn't cripple the country, as much as some might fantasize.

The complexity you are talking about is the same religious belief that portends that a POTUS is somehow holding the nation together. More irony, calling my characterization simplistic.

[hownottowrite]

Do you actually believe that this is the way the world works?

Super curious if you do or if... https://xkcd.com/6/

[jack9]

Of course I do. The idea that a single individual directs (generally through a number of cabinet positions, notably Secretary of State) is how the US presidency worked under a number of administrations, most notably Bush Jr and Reagan. Jimmy Carter was a micromanager, by contrast. The physical process of running the US presidency does not come in an orientation, just a transition process (handoff of key information and items). POTUS function is a matter of philosophy and personal style in dealing with the bureaucracy. It's how the station really works, if you're interested in the reality.

[hownottowrite]

Sure, just like any other high-level executive function which is basically my entire point.

If you ever find yourself in a position of executive authority, you'll realize pretty quick that direct action is usually a disaster in the making when dealing with internal matters. However, by using indirect methods through key designates, you can actually get quite a bit done even in the worst bureaucracies.

By contrast, direct action is often required when dealing with external issues. Executive heads tend to deal only with other executive heads. This is true in business, and doubly true in politics.