Is the United States ready for a President who speaks to the populace like adults?

[InfiniteNow]

Ermm... Okay.

So, back to the question at hand.

[Thunderbird]

Studies have been done where a group of random individuals are put in a room to solve certain problems, The usual outcome is that the person’s that immediately attempt to put themselves in positions of leadership, or also the first to sacrifice truth to retain a consensus or group think. The interest becomes more about what will keep the group together as a unit, under control of the leadership, rather than what is the best information and direction for all. It is the dark side of democracy, but it is still the best system to date.

[Freddy]

About 81% of Americans identify with Christianity. How devout they are I have no clue, but I know plenty who are not devout.

Catholics make up about 25% of Americans. I am a fallen one.

Jefferson identified himself as a Deist, who edited the Bible so it contained Jesus words. He did not believe in miracles or Jesus' divinity.

The United States is a Republic and is required by the Constitution to guarantee each state a republican government.

The word, Democracy, is not found in the Constitution.

Harry Truman is the president that I think treated Americans as adults.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

And it could also be said that a nation gets the leaders they deserve.

This is fairly obvious in that the vast majority of the 535 members of Congress, elected by the people, should be sent packing. The founders saw the problem with using the popular vote and purposely constructed the electoral college to avoid it in the case of choosing the President. Throughout history democracies chosen by a popular vote have eventually failed. Perhaps the founders should have found a more indirect method of choosing the people's and the state's representatives as well.

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

The best leader would not be one elected by the people but one who gained that appointment in some other means that was more selective.

I think perhaps the President should be chosen by Congress as long as the problems with electing a responsible Congress are fixed. We could start by repealing the 17th Amendment and making the Senators representatives of the States as originally intended.

[jackson33]

Probably the single most effective tool in the US Constitution is the use of 'Checks and Balances', where each branch can be over ridden by another, in some way. If Congress chose the President, that would seriously injure the Executive branch, if for no other reason than expectations. Remember, the 'electors' are chosen by by local legislatures, even today. They will represent the 'Party' the populace vote for, which may NOT be the party in a power of a state or their representation in Washington.

The 17th Amendment, allows for progression of a public career, in a timely manner. Where senators were originally chose, through a States legislature procedure, those legislature were and are now voted into office by the states people. With few exceptions the same people would have been voted to represent a state as Senator, including Ms. Clinton, but with a time delay for State residency (think was 9 years).

As for 'sent packing', yes people from outside one state have always thought this of representation from others. IMO; W/O the 17th Amendment, this would be even a larger problem, as Federal influence will always go along with longevity/seniority. Think it was Hamilton, who argued for 'life terms' for Senators, losing to Madison's 6 year arguments. That is the sentiment did exist the extensive terms, now seen.

I would agree, Truman came close to truth in speaking to people. More important, he acted on his convictions, not concerned with some legacy.
Lincoln, also would be a close second and several early in our history. However these folks had few 'government dependents' to worry about and the voters for the most part, concerned with Country first, public opinion well down the list...at the time.

[C1ay]

I get the impression you don't understand the damage done by the 17th Amendment. As founded Congress has two houses, The House of Representatives which are intended to represent the people and The Senate which was intended to represent the States. State interests can be quite different than the people's interests. The 17th Amendment made Senators representatives of the people by making them elected by the people instead of being chosen by the State legislatures. The effect is that the constituents of the Senators and those they must pander to in order to get elected or reelected are the people and not the States they are intended to represent. We effectively have 2 houses of representatives for the people now and no genuine representation of the States.

[jackson33]

I'm not sure, Senators were intended to represent their State in total. It would seem to me 'one' would would have been better and then making the 17th adm. a problem. Even with two, with equal power to any State, not always are they from the same party, the States Legislatures affiliation, the Governors party or in fact members of any majority party. Wouldn't this tend toward the founders wishes to thwart dominance of any party.

At any rate, the rolls of the House and Senate are different and the 6 year term, limits pandering to State officials or the public and the interest of their State SHOULD be up front, even on National interest, as perceived by their political affiliation or platform. If the people of a State elect their legislatures and those legislatures then picked the Senators, wouldn't the pandering then become expectations of the people to begin with.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by jackson33

I'm not sure, Senators were intended to represent their State in total. It would seem to me 'one' would would have been better and then making the 17th adm. a problem. Even with two, with equal power to any State, not always are they from the same party, the States Legislatures affiliation, the Governors party or in fact members of any majority party. Wouldn't this tend toward the founders wishes to thwart dominance of any party.

From Federalist No. 39:

The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source.

Federalist Nos. 62 & 63 outline the intended function and powers delegated to the Senate. Other pieces of the Federalist Papers make the case for the form of government chosen and how it was intended to operate.

Yes, the legislatures of the States are elected by the people of the States but they are not representatives of the people at the federal level. It was the intended function for the State legislatures to appoint Senators at the federal level to guard the States interests at the federal level, not the peoples interests since the people have their own representatives at the federal level. Their are times when the States interests and the people's interests are at odds and the appointment of the States representatives as opposed to the election of those representatives insulates their responsibility. It is this same effect of insulation that is the reason judges are appointed instead of elected, lest judicial objectivity be tainted by judges having to judge the very constituents that elected them.

[HydrogenBond]

The larger the size of the government, the more the population is treated like children. We have dependent children, spoiled children lobbying for extra dessert, we have big mother interfering in the children's lives, big brother watching, Dad is working and maybe feuding with the neighbors. We control the children's behavior, we childproof the country, we put children in time out, take away their toys, play favorite son, etc. Political correctness is table manners. Global warming and terrorism are the boogie man. We try to shelter the children from deep concerns. The parents talk about the deep stuff between themselves.

Because the population is treated like children, politicians become uncle and auntie when they are on the campaign trail. They are nice people. They like to make you feel good, give you some wise direction, are sympathetic to your concerns, until they are elected parents. The Republicans are dad and the Democrats are mom.

Getting back to a president, who speaks to the populous as adults, to be consistent, he would need to also treat them like adults. Parents may set controls for their children. But when the children become adults they can ignore many of controls. Mom may still nag at you about your table manners. But as an adult in your own home, one can eat with their feet if they want. Dad may want you on a curfew, but an adult can stay up all night. Even if one of the parents treats you as an adult, there is still the other parent. He or she can make their spouse miserable, if they fear loss of control or an empty nest. I don't think mom and dad are both ready to let go. One might expect only enough teaching not to overload the children. Or if you are nice, they might play games or be entertaining.

[Boerseun]

Things will already start improving if we don't sue and litigate just for the hell of it. We should grow out of the "child" phase, and take 100% responsibility for our actions. If we don't do that, we can't blame the government for treating us like kids. For instance, if you buy a cup of coffee and spill it over yourself, don't sue Starbucks for not putting a label on the mug that says "Boiling hot content inside - do not spill".

If you do sue them, you're an idiot who shouldn't be allowed within ten miles of a coffee machine. No amount of warning labels will help you. Grow up! Learn the basics about coffee!

TRUE STORY:
In SA, we had a case awhile ago about a guy who broke into a house and hurt himself. Because of the high crime rates in my country, every house has burglar bars and alarm systems. But few people secure their roofs. So this rocket scientist decided to break in to the house by lifting roof tiles, and go through the ceiling. So he lifted the tiles, climbed into the unsecured ceiling, and stepped on to the ceiling board thats nailed to the roof trusses. And, of course, the board wasn't built to support a grown man's weight, and he fell right through it, breaking his ankle.
He did go to jail for housebreaking, but he sued for the dangerous ceiling, and was awarded a few hundred thousand. The principle is that the dangerous ceiling wasn't properly marked.

Now THAT, in my honest-to-God opinion, is just nuts. And any society that allows this kind of bullshit, will get what's coming to them.