Moving Government from “Spectacle” to “Spectacularly Great Entertainment”
Without in any way endorsing anything McCain has said today, particularly moving the goal posts yet again in Iraq to 2013 (conveniently enough JUST after his presumed re-election against a candidate urging to “cut-and-run”), I do have to say that I like his urging to bring UK-style question sessions to the President. Aside from my belief in the necessity of such things for the health of a democracy, I also believe this type of procedure makes for fantastic television.
I have come to believe that one of the greatest tragedies of the Bush 2 presidency has been the complete transformation of the presidency into a carefully controlled photo-op. While this has helped to reduce unfortunate gaffes by this particularly prone president, it has also turned the most powerful democratically elected office in the world into a complete spectacle. I believe that this has had two harmful consequences:
1) It leaves the American public feeling cut off from their elected leaders, thus reducing government legitimacy and public participation.
2) It leaves the American government cut off from the American people, and worse, cut off from even the most marginal inquiry.
While #1 is unfortunate, I believe that #2 has been disastrous. Perhaps the reason why we’ve seen policy after policy which should never have been implemented is that nobody was ever actually able to ask the President a meaningful question about the policies he wanted to implement. Instead, we received a classic case of cabinet groupthink and, well, we see what we’ve ended up with.
I’m not sure that a “Questions” session is the perfect answer to this problem, but it’s a great place to start. If a President can’t be bothered to learn enough about why a policy should be implemented to defend it to the lawmakers who fund it at the taxpayers expense, well, then maybe that policy shouldn’t be pursued any further. It may not actually bring information feedback back to American government, but it should make for some great entertainment.
Jack on 15 May 2008 at 7:16 pm #
Steven Taylor shares your enthusiasm but is skeptical that Mr. President’s Questions will materialize.
Having sipped the McCain Kool-Aid back in 2000, I’m inclined to believe he wouldn’t use the signing statement as a line item veto, which he’s also promised.
But can we really expect the presidency, destined as it is to aggrandizement, to submit to regular opposition ribbing on C-SPAN?
MSS on 20 May 2008 at 1:54 pm #
Well, “question period” is a great idea, but it is totally inconsistent with separation of powers. The point of question period is that the head of government is actually accountable to the body posing the questions.
I’ve written on this, er, question, too.
Christopher Neu on 20 May 2008 at 2:34 pm #
I couldn’t disagree more with MSS’ post. Yes, the exact format of PMQs is unique to the Westminster-style PR system, but that doesn’t mean that the idea of regular questioning of the head of government can’t cross the Atlantic.
“Signing Statements” and funding wars through “Emergency” budgeting procedures is inconsistent with the U.S. system guaranteeing separation of powers; being able to ask questions of the Executive Branch is not.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about your post on TDP is that you actually contradict your statement here in your post on Fruits and Votes in condemning the SOTU as a “speech from the throne,” and even recommend an option similar to the one that I proposed.
From your post:
“(1) go back to the head of state being kept off the floor of the separate legislative body and instead have him send a written message to congress
OR
(2) have the head of government stick around after presenting his plans and spin and make him take questions–preferably weekly, as in Canada and the UK.”
I agree with you, but I feel that the preferable option to this question by far is 2). Good government policies require regular scrutiny and in-depth questioning, whereas writing letters merely further entrenches the posturing and lack of communication between the U.S. branches of government that has produced such regular stalemate.
Jack on 20 May 2008 at 4:10 pm #
President’s Questions would be barely more substantive than congressional opposition sand-bagging of the executive on public TV.
For that reason, I’m skeptical it ever will happen.
On the other hand, I see the campaign objective. McCain wants to capitalize on sentiment against a president who’s made a sport of avoiding accountability - horizontal, vertical, diagonal, cross-dimensional, or however one wants to conceptualize it. Signing statements are just one example. Who can forget Bush-and-Cheney’s ‘joint testimony’ before the 9/11 commission?
Bob Richard on 21 May 2008 at 6:16 pm #
Christopher: … the Westminster-style PR system …
I think you meant “the Westminster-style parliamentary system”. The Westminster Parliament is still very much winner-take-all, although the regional parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not.
Confusing PR and parliamentary government is very common. I think it also encouraged (if only unconsciously) by opponents of PR. In other words, if you can make people believe that parliamentary government is necessary for PR, you can use that as an argument against PR.
Christopher Neu on 22 May 2008 at 5:41 am #
Good point, Bob. I should know better than to use those terms interchangeably. This will teach me to blog on the run.