Hello! Hello! Hello! Welcome to episode 39 of We Don’t Talk About P-word. Today, we continue to answer the question: “What’s the matter with our government?” 
Last week, we dipped our toe into the waters of the Presidency. I provided you with a little background information, and showed you why that went wrong. As I said in the beginning, there are more answers to the above question than minutes in this podcast. But most problems in the executive branch have evolved for three reasons. First, we have let the Presidency become too powerful. Second, George Washington put us on track to a combative, not cooperative government. Third, we have been electing our Presidents wrong for most of our nation’s history.
As we continue our chats, you will see the links between many of our problems and these three reasons. I will also explain how a political reset can begin to heal these concerns. (If you aren’t familiar with a political reset, refer to episode six Bloodless Revolution.) 
Last episode, we ended with a discussion about how we elect the President. Since at least 1800, we have selected the President incorrectly. The design behind the election of the Chief Executive was to elect a “man of the People.” That is why the presidency was first determined by selecting two candidates. One could be from their home state, and the other had to be from another. They hoped this method would ensure Favorite Sons from larger states wouldn't dominate.
The idea was to choose a knowledgeable, well-respected, candidate. They wanted someone held in high esteem among the People. I would say nonpartisan, but as I have shown, the Founders never addressed this. Well, not specifically. Choosing two candidates (one not from your state) was an effort to curb sectionalism. Sectionalism is another type of faction, today an outdated word for partisanship.
If you know our history, you will know that the first parties split mainly along sectional lines. The Federalists were primarily from the northern states. The Antifederalists were from the south. 
A nonpartisan President is necessary. This is the only way a democratic (small D) executive can be successful. This is the only way for the People to have trust in their leader. If a President isn’t respected, then their role becomes diminished. We saw this in 2016. A partisan president is a distraction. They get very little of substance accomplished. A popular partisan president is more in line with what the Founders feared most. That was a demagogue trained in what they called the practice of the “popular arts.” 
The Founders saw a demagogue in two shades. One is a relaxed, friendly candidate who has no understanding of politics. Two is a candidate who drives their popularity on divisive issues. These are usually based on prejudices and bigotry. They usually have no understanding of politics either, but we should fear when they do. 
The problem is that when we elect partisan presidents, the electorate does not trust them. At least, a significant subsection does not. This was even true at the end of Washington's second term. His closeness to Alexander Hamilton got him labeled a Federalist. Though he didn’t necessarily disagree with them, he did try to remain nonpartisan. This created a schism between him and Thomas Jefferson. It also made him unpopular with the Antifederalists. Things would remain professional until John Adams took the helm... for the most part.
Even though Adams wasn’t a party man either, he did believe the privileged should rule. He advocated for a more aristocratic system of government. This linked him to the Federalist Party. The truth is that he disliked Hamilton more than Jefferson did.
Neutrality went out the window  with Jefferson's election. In fairness, as a Democratic-Republican, he combined both Federalist and Antifederalist views. Jefferson was only anti-Federalist when he wasn’t the one calling the shots. From then on, our government has gotten more and more confused. That’s because, with the election of 1800, we ended all pretense of nonpartisan elections.
So, what’s the point? Why am I discussing something that went wrong over 200 years ago? Because it doesn’t have to be that way. We can fix it. 
If you are a regular listener to this podcast, you know we need radical change to our political system. Not our government, our political system.  Fix the politics; fix the government. Only radical change can make that difference. We are long past half measures and false promises. If the People want to remain the sovereigns of this nation, we must stand up and, with one voice, demand it! 
So, how do we do that?
For starters, we reclaim the Presidency. For over 200 years, the political parties have held the presidency hostage. The parties seized the presidency and made them their leaders. This is contrary to democratic values. 
“We the People… form a more perfect union.” 
The leader of the United States is the head of the People's state; not the government, not the parties. The government is nothing more than a tool to provide for the People’s safety and happiness. Sadly, a tool can be corrupted for authoritarian purposes. The parties are, simply put, representatives of special interests. They do not represent the People. Special interests only have interest in their own agendas.
If we hope for success, it requires us to topple the pillars of the Corporate Political Agenda. Unfortunately, that requires the People to reject the propaganda. It requires the People to reject partisanship. It requires the People to come together and speak as one voice. It requires a political reset. (You can learn more about the four pillars in episode twenty-four Remove the Blinders.) 
So, how do we do it? We change the way we elect our presidents. We remove the parties from the executive. We make the Presidency a true representative of the People.

I know I say this a lot, but anything that doesn’t need a Constitutional amendment is easy in our government. (Well, it is easy relative to an amendment.) The People just need to know how to apply pressure, and the Presidency is the easiest place for the People to do so.
The Founders believed that the President would reach beyond the interests  of factions. They expected their focus to be on the public interest. Gouverneur Morris, a Founder from New York, commented on the natural role of the executive. During the convention debates, he described their role as “... the guardian of the lower classes… against the Great and Wealthy.”
There is no other position in the federal government that all the People decide. The Senate is elected by the People of one state. The House is elected by the People of one district in a state. The Supreme Court is filled through appointment. The Presidency is the only leader that all the People elect. It is the only branch of government that the People can capture and hold. 
With the power of the Presidency, We the People will petition our government for a redress of grievances.  To achieve that, we must rethink the way we elect presidents.
We must take the Presidency away from the parties. We must make them not the leader of a party, but a representative of the People.  We must make them the head of the People's state. We must make the President the Vox populi , the Voice of the People. For that, we must elect an independent President. 
(Once again, if you are wondering how we can achieve that, check out episode six.) There is so much more to claiming the presidency for the People than winning. We must sever the tie between parties and presidents. 
That starts with the way we elect them. 
We must stop electing party cronies to further party agendas. We must elect leaders with agendas to further the People's safety and happiness. Candidates must offer an agenda for the benefit of the People. They must give us an agenda to vote for, not partisan propaganda to vote against. 
Presidents must also stop interfering with the work of Congress. Congress must be left to do their job, for good or bad. It is the job of a President to present the People’s agenda. It is the job of Congress to enact the legislation of the People’s agenda. It is then the President’s job to enforce the People’s agenda. Before that, they provide the first barrier of constitutionality. They determine whether it is constitutional and within the spirit of the People’s agenda. If not, they veto it. If Congress has strong enough support for their law, they can override it. 
That is how checks and balances work. When the President and Congress are the same party, it is nothing more than a rubber stamp. When divided, the government gets nothing done. An independent president is meant to be the fulcrum of our government. 
Yes, the President should be part of the process. It ensures the People’s agenda is achieved. The President should not be part of the party posturing. They should be the arbitrator , there as a constant reminder of the People’s agenda. They should be there to represent the agenda the People elected them to deliver.
Today, a partisan president cannot be trusted to be fair and impartial. Neither party trusts the other’s leaders. A democratic government cannot function like that. We are living through proof of that. We must have a president whose only agenda is the one the People elected them to achieve. The idea is not to tell Congress how to achieve the People’s agenda, it’s to keep them on task. The how is up to the two parties that control Congress. 
This is only possible with an independent president. Even third-party candidates have an agenda of their own. The first time would be the hardest, but not impossible, as I showed in episode six. From there, with the People’s support, we could make it easier in the future. 
The benefits of this are immense.
If we remove one partisan cog from the wheel of government, we force Congress to do their job. We reduce the constant raging between parties. It removes their ability to lay blame on the President. To pass laws, to run the government, they must negotiate with each other. There is no party leader to provide an advantage, no president to choose winners. The President and Vice President would represent the People, not a party’s agenda. 
By removing the parties from the Presidency, we remove an excuse for Congress not to govern.
Removing the Executive from the legislative process eliminates this Presidential seizure of power. That is exactly as the Constitution intended. The President’s only role in the legislative process is to present the People’s agenda. After that, their role is nothing more than approval or disapproval. They may offer advice. They may inform Congress why it doesn’t meet the agenda or that it is unconstitutional. It is not the President’s role to be involved in the legislative process. It is their job to provide the framework. It is the legislative branch’s role to construct laws based on that framework. It is not their job to be part of the sausage making, just to order and taste test it.
I blame this on our desire to elect former Senators and Representatives as President. Since George Washington, twenty-five Presidents were former members of Congress. That is 54% of our Presidents. Some never transitioned from the legislative to the executive branch. They were stuck in the mindset of legislation. By itself, that may not have been the worst thing. The problem is they are also stuck in the mindset of a partisan legislator. In theory, this government experience is a good thing. Our partisan government has shown it to be anything but. It creates a political grey area that threatens our system of checks and balances. 
Our Presidents want to have their finger in the legislative pie . They want to direct the legislation when that is no longer their role. They ignore their role as the voice of the People and embrace their role as party leader. Many seek the office specifically for this title. It is always to the detriment of the People.
So how would this reset look, functionally?
A presidential candidate would present an agenda to the People. This agenda would highlight their goals to defend and further American Values. There would be few if any legislative directions. It would be a general framework for legislation. The People would then be able to judge potential candidates based on what they look to achieve. 
Of course, these agendas may range from the ridiculous to the overambitious. That is why I have focused, in this podcast, on the need for We the People to be informed voters. It is one of the four pillars propping up the Corporate Political Agenda. We must cleanse our nation of passive voters. The People could then make an informed decision on their preferred candidate. They could choose who offers an agenda closest to their own views for America.
After the election, the President’s job becomes to shepherd the People’s agenda. This doesn’t mean to direct the legislative process. This means to provide council and ultimately decide if it achieves the People’s goals. Their job becomes to find consensus between the parties. Their job is to be the representative of the People in the federal government. Currently, there are none. We have representatives of the parties and a few independents who caucus with a party. We have no representative of the People. When that is the case, we cannot have good government. 
James Madison made this clear in Federalist #62.
“A good government implies two things: first fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can best be attained.”
A good President will create an agenda that strives to achieve the happiness of the People. The People will choose the agenda they believe best embodies American Values. A good Congress will recognize the President’s non-partisan agenda as the will of the People. A good government will find consensus and further the People’s safety and happiness. 
This is impossible if we continue to elect partisan candidates to the Presidency. 
I am not saying that it cannot be possible again. One day, we may reach a point where the partisan temperature has cooled again. The government may return to cooperation, and end its policy of antagonization. People will remind the parties of their place. Party candidates may become acceptable again, but, if I am being honest, I would hope not. 
We cannot be rid of factions or parties. They are as much a part of a democracy as ‘rule by the People’. As long as there is freedom of speech, there will be special interests. That's a good thing. That is how things get accomplished. That is why it is imperative to reclaim the Presidency for the People. It is the only federal branch of government the People can control. It is the only branch that all the People choose. To end this partisan takeover of our government, we must elect independent Presidents. It is the only way to make a statement loud enough to be heard.
An independent president will do two things. It will either lead to consensus or it will provide the parties a common “enemy.” Some might even consider that the preferable outcome. Either way, the result will be the parties working together for the People. Whether that is in support or in rejection of the President’s agenda is the least important aspect. What matters is we achieve governance for the People. It is then left up to them to decide who is doing the better job, as it should always be. 
Legislators often attack the executive branch because of how it enforces the law, but that is its job. The legislative branch creates the laws. The executive executes the laws. The judicial adjudicates the law. When laws are written as incomplete frameworks, the executive must interpret them. Otherwise, they cannot execute them. If that is not their desired outcome, legislators must spend more time crafting the laws. They must remove any question to their intent or trust the executive to enforce the law.
By changing the way we elect the President, we can achieve this. 
Legislators should focus on legislation instead of the motives of the executive. If they did, then they could create more comprehensive laws. This would mean less interpretation was necessary. The nation wouldn’t need to rely on executive interpretations  of law. As long as the President is in the orbit of a political party, division will remain. We cannot trust a party leader’s motives to align with the People’s. Obviously, Congress would still need to be skeptical of an independent president. They would need to be ready to counter any undemocratic actions. But without the power of a party behind them, the mischief they could cause is limited. 
You might even say that this is part of the checks and balances that the Founders envisioned. An independent president’s success would be based on fidelity to the agenda they were elected on. It would be based on their ability to cool the temperature in Congress to mediate a consensus. 
It would not be based on the success or failure of partisan agendas in Congress. Let the partisan chambers argue over how to achieve it. The President must stay outside of that to bring balance to our government. The President must remain outside of partisanship to protect the People's agenda. 
This will both strengthen Congress and weaken the powers of the Presidency. Those are both good things. More importantly, it will bring greater parity to the branches of government. That is, after all, the purpose of a system of checks and balances. 
You might be thinking this sounds great, but you’re also thinking, “How do we get there?” If you’ve been following this podcast, you’ll know the answer is a grind. It is not at all easy, but it is possible. 
I laid out how an independent President wins their first election back in episode six. I then laid out an amendment to be passed within the first one hundred days in episode 20 Personhood. This amendment would remove the rights of the People from corporations. It would also remove corporate money from politics.
That is how we get to the point that we can make it more accessible in the future. An independent president’s agenda must call for greater ballot access for independents. I would like to see that work out to a system that offers a way for corporate and other entities to donate to politics. 
Now you’re saying, “WHAT!? Doesn’t that contradict the whole purpose?”
Not the way I envision it. I would like to see a way for corporations to invest in our political system. It is their country, too, but they should never be able to pick winners. Corporations have a right to invest in national politics. Special interests and other organizations have a right to invest in national politics. They do not have the right to choose a candidate. That is up to those who populate that organization. Only the People should be choosing candidates. We could achieve this with a national political fund. (I would love to see this happen in states, too, but that’s up to each individually.) 
This political fund would pay out at a specified time frame before the next election. It would be divided into thirds. A third would go to each major party (to use as they see fit). The final third would go into a fund for independent candidates. Congress would determine how to pay out this fund to individual candidates. With this system, you could even limit the political season. (No more multi-year election cycles! YAY!) Sure, they can start campaigning before the date. If they don’t get the bulk of their campaign financing until that date, how much can they do? 
This would also be a positive for corporations, though I doubt they would see it that way. Most wealthy and corporate elites donate to both parties. It makes sense when you are more concerned about profit than democracy. Play both sides, so that no matter who wins, you own the vote. The downside is when companies get involved in politics, they risk being canceled. Despite your opinion on cancel culture, it isn't going anywhere.
A current example that most are aware of is what’s going on with Disney in Florida. Now, I couldn’t care less about Disney losing money and power. Using the government to take revenge is the stuff of dictatorships. It is not acceptable in a democracy. 
What I propose would remove these companies from politics. Their leaders and policies could still get them in trouble. Remove the leader or change the policy, and the company survives. The companies themselves would be nonpartisan.
Now, I get it. I know this wouldn’t guarantee them their representative's vote. A sense of security must be worth something. A more stable government? A happier, committed, safer workforce? Those should be worth even more, even if they wouldn’t admit it.
Not to mention, it would earn them the goodwill of the People. It could also mean a lack thereof, if they decide it no longer benefits them to support our government. I have spoken about creating a symbiotic relationship between the People and capitalism. This is an important step in redefining that relationship. Until the People are set above corporations and wealth, it will remain parasitic.
The People can make a difference. To do so requires a grind. It won’t be easy. It won’t be fast, but it is possible to lessen the effects of partisanship on our government. It is possible to finally bring balance to our government.
We can only do that with one voice. We can only do that by first reclaiming the Presidency for the People. 
Only together…
We the People are the Power.