Chapter II: The President's Job

People often speak as if it is the President's job to decide what the country is going to do. I disagree.

The President is the executive branch. Congress is the one who is supposed to decide what to do. The President is then supposed to go and do it.

The President's job is to meekly obey Congress.

The President should be (and often has been) immersed in the minutia of actually getting things done. Having meetings with staff members, deciding who to hire, making decisions that are important but not so important that the boss (Congress) should be bothered. Chief bureaucrat.

But people talk as if the President is supposed to decide things. As if, if you want abortion to be legal or illegal, or taxes to go up or down, or more or less money to be spent of education, or for guns to be legal or illegal, you should vote for a certain candidate.

That is not the President's job.

I have view on all of these things. But if I were President, I would refrain from trying to impose those views on the entire country.

• I would do what Congress tells me with regards to controversial issues, even if I disagree. In fact, instead of trying to decide new controversial issues that came up myself, I would ask Congress to tell me what to do.

There are limits, of course. There are certain things that seem to me to be so unethical that I would not do them, even if I were told. I would not torture someone, for example, or order someone to be tortured.

But I would implement most policies even if I thought them to be unethical. For instance, I don't think it is ethical to punish adults for "victimless crimes", things like prostitution and gambling and (in some people's opinion) drugs, where no one but the perpetrator is hurt. But as President, I would direct the federal government to continue to enforce these laws.

Because Congress should decide controversial issues, not the President.

This isn't to say that I would refuse to do anything quickly. If something came up that was important and controversial enough that I would normally ask Congress what to do, but something had to be done about it quickly, I wouldn't wait for Congress to make up its mind; I would go ahead and take action.

And that isn't to say that I wouldn't disagree publically. I would tell the public when I disagree with what Congress is telling me to do. I would do what I was told, but I would disagree.

Foreign policy

There is one (huge) exception to this. It is recognized that Congress is too slow to run every aspect of foreign policy. Big decisions have to be made quickly, and we have to have a way to negotiate with other countries (a way besides the other country's Congress passing a law saying "Country X Officially Says: How about this?", and then, 9 months later, our country's Congress passing a law saying, "The United States Officially Replies: Maybe, but how about this?"). In addition, we want the President to have enough authority so that when he or she promises or threatens something, that carries some force.

So, although domestically, the President should meekly obey Congress, in foreign policy, the President should take a policy-setting role.

This is not to say that the President should set policy alone, in direct opposition to Congress. The biggest decisions, like declaring war or signing a treaty, can only be done by Congress. And if Congress passes a law telling the President what to do about some lesser issue, the President must follow it.

However, unlike domestic policy, in foreign policy, the President should usually take the initiative in deciding what the U.S. is going to do during his or her tenure. If Congress explicitly disagrees, that's one thing, but except for wars and treaties, the President does not need Congress to explicitly agree on every foreign policy.

Therefore, it seems strange to meI understand the practical reasons why this happens; but what I am saying is that it shouldn't happen. My goal is to encourage people to permit their Presidents to take their marching orders from Congress in domestic matters; while encouraging them to demand more expertise from candidates in foreign policy. My goal is also to encourage Presidents to take their marching orders from Congress in domestic matters; without encouraging them to do so in foreign policy. that presidential candidates are often asked to focus on what their ideas are for improving the economy, on abortion, and other controversial domestic matters; because this is not really their job. But sometimes candidates are allowed to get by without a detailed and thorough knowledge of international affairs; but that should be a much bigger part of their job.

The civil service

The President's job is not to decide what to do, but rather to actually run things. To be a manager.

The President has run all sorts of different organizations. She or he can't possibly be competent in all of those areas.

It seems to me that a lot of the knowledge needed to manage an organization is little stuff, the sort of stuff that you won't know unless you've managed this particular sort of organization before.

Therefore, to be an effective manager, the President should make use of the expertise of people who have experience working in each particular agency.

Yet the first thing that incoming Presidents do is to get rid of the last guy's personnel and replace them with new people who agree with the new administration.

What a waste of expertise.

But those people aren't even the ones with the real expertise. The civil servants, the ones who remain for decades, are the ones who really know what's going on. Why aren't they ever in charge?

• I would have someone who works for me talk to the civil servants in each agency and ask them if they can agree on one of them whom they would like to be their boss. Perhaps I would ask them to vote on it, with Condorcet or something like that. If a large majority of them could agree on a particular agency employee that they thought would make a good leader, I would nominate that person to run the agency (unless Congress disagreed, or unless I had a particular reason to not want that person in charge).

If there was a way, I would keep around some of the appointees from the previous administration, too.

Calling attention to issues

(todo; use speeches to call attention to systemic issues like corruption, campaign finance reform, accounting chicancery, etc)

Getting re-elected

(todo)

• If I were president, rather than worry about being re-elected, I assume that I only had one term and not worry about getting a second one.

This sounds like it contradicts my opinion that the President should pay attention to the people and do what they say. Because doesn't "worrying about the election" mean "doing what the people want, so that they re-elect you"? Doesn't "not worrying about the re-election" mean "doing what you think is best, even if everyone else disagrees?".

No, that's not how I mean it. I would still strive to do what the people want me to do. But there are times when getting elected means not doing something, but rather doing something in a photogenic way. Giving big speeches, flying around all over, having the right soundbites. This takes a lot of time and effort.

In addition, in many cases the way to ensure that you get re-elected is by doing what a certain minority of the people (your base) want you to do, even if no one else wants you to do that. In these cases, getting re-elected and serving the will of the people are in direct conflict.