[sanderjd]

I'm sympathetic to your perspective that it's a broad cultural thing.

But from my point of view, it's more of a demonstration of the problem with governments that are designed to have a very strong executive. Eventually you get an executive that really sucks, and when that happens they can do a lot of damage.

One of the biggest influences on my thinking from listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History is a point he made about hereditary monarchy, that among its problems is that sometimes the next ruler in line is just a total dud, and you're just stuck with them.

Well, you can get a dud through voting as well. Ideally having fairly short terms mitigates this risk, but there is still a lot of damage that can be done in a short term, and there is a "who watches the watchmen" problem with the executive being required to fairly run the election to potentially replace them.

If we make it through this period with elections that remain fair and with successful transitions of power, I hope we'll find ways to weaken the presidency.

[foobarchu]

> it's more of a demonstration of the problem with governments that are designed to have a very strong executive

The system WASN'T design to have a very strong executive, quite literally the opposite. The other branches have simply bowed down and let him bulldoze them. And yes, this has been building up for decades, but these cases are and above any overreach of previous presidents.

[sanderjd]

A presidential system is a design that has a strong executive. I agree that the presidency has grown stronger then intended, but it was always strong relative to other kinds of systems.

[pgkr]

The Federalist Papers show the thinking behind how and why the three branches are mostly co-equal but the executive is designed to be ever so slightly more potent.

[skissane]

> But from my point of view, it's more of a demonstration of the problem with governments that are designed to have a very strong executive. Eventually you get an executive that really sucks, and when that happens they can do a lot of damage.

The presidential system, widespread in Latin America, has an inherent tendency to produce caudillos. The US had the good fortune of escaping that fate for decade after decade, but maybe with Trump its luck has finally run out.

The parliamentary system, as used in the rest of the Anglosphere and most of Western Europe – it doesn't require a monarchy, see parliamentary republics such as Germany and Ireland – avoids this problem by putting greater limits on executive power – Prime Ministers derive their authority from the legislature and can be removed by it with a simple majority; while the US cabinet is essentially an advisory body to the President, Westminster cabinets are collegial bodies in which the Prime Minister is just one vote among many and can be outvoted by their colleagues.

> One of the biggest influences on my thinking from listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History is a point he made about hereditary monarchy, that among its problems is that sometimes the next ruler in line is just a total dud, and you're just stuck with them.

"Great Britain is a republic with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king" (The Knoxville Journal, 9 February 1896)

[sanderjd]

Yep, you put my thoughts much better than I could have. And great quote! Hadn't ever come across that.

[mrtksn]

There's nothing about luck in this though, the "non-dud" ones were just able to push the problems under the rug and make it a problem of the people of the future.

The reason why you end up with a dud through election is that the rug can't cover all that anymore.

[_aavaa_]

Except the legislative branch could keep him in check, they are simply choosing to go along with it.

[sanderjd]

One facet of the strength of our presidency is the degree of consensus required for Congress to exert itself in opposition to the president. Both impeachment and veto overrides are high hurdles.