What policy platform would I vote for?
Simply this:
- No military operations, ever, without a formal declaration of war from Congress. Otherwise, let the NSC carry out Congress’ instructions. All declarations of war must have “win” conditions, which, once achieved, will signal the President to stop fighting the war – regardless of the diplomatic environment and Pentagon’s feelings. Trespassing these conditions is grounds to fire NSC members.
- Supreme court nominees: if a law’s constitutionality is dubious, force Congress to settle the question, otherwise strike it down completely. Make Congress sweat, when it comes to Constitutionality. Otherwise, if Congress is willing to put their political necks on the line, then the Court would defer to them. The goal isn’t to go back to the Confederation days, we’re accommodating federal power here, but we’re forcing the pressure back into Congress.
- A systematic review of government services, and efficiency, followed by the world’s longest and most boring State of the Union addresses. Demand four of them every year, and threaten national broadcast licenses if they aren’t broadcast. Be very neutral. Simply review what services are being offered, for what ostensible reasons, and whether outcomes match the reasons. Don’t critique the reasons. Force Americans to realize what a Kafkaesque monstrosity they have voted for. If they’re okay with it still, fine.
- Budgets only. Threaten veto of anything that’s not a budget. Threaten a real shut-down. Give Congress milestones to accomplish. If the budget isn’t lining up, start redeploying troops from overseas in anticipation of firing them from federal service. Start putting up federal lands for bid. If Congress wants to debt-finance the budget, that’s their problem and choice. Don’t work with either party, at all. Propose a single, stay-the-course budget, then leave it in Congress’ hands.
- Systematic Pentagon, Federal Reserve, vote integrity, and intelligence agency audits. The deal is that every year at least some people have to go to jail – because we know there’s widespread criminality – thus the big guys have to be willing to do some limited hangout. The deal is that, while these institutions would never conform to complete legality, they should be put on notice that completely unrestrained illegality is not going to be allowed. That should be the deal, and it would be a compromise – the President won’t threaten the criminals existentially, only demand a certain “tax” on their activities in the form of a little accountability here and there.
- Presidential addresses on geopolitics. Twice a year, address the public from the Oval Office on geopolitics. Report on what the deep state is deciding, as if it’s a complete conventional and boring administrative process (which it sort of is). Note that Israel has nukes, and has a Samson option, and so in continuation of past policy, America will continue to help them secure their sovereignty to avoid nuclear terrorism. Note that Saudi has an economic Samson option, and so similarly we are sending troops to Iraq to suppress Saudi’s competitors. Note that China’s One Belt road threatens American dominance in Europe, so the Pentagon has decided to maintain a permanent presence in Afghanistan for strategic reasons. Address these points in as factual, and dry, a manner as possible. Act like the President – a CEO or administrator, who merely overseas and executes the will of the Board.
This is my ideal President. A man of neutrality, and of the law. If we’re going to have a President at all, that is. An utterly apolitical President.
Sure, some of my points seem political. In reality, I’m just saying that a President knows that the Federal Government is an ostensible product of democratic processes. Good management means supporting those processes – but not trying to fix their outcome. That’s all I want! An environment where the reality of government is subject to popular accountability, under otherwise stable and neutral, effective management.
Still, I’d love to put someone like this up against the other assclowns in a debate. Stoic and reliable, gravely aware of the problems of state, while the others debate hand size and policies that never actually change.
