Law professor suggests two-person Presidency to stop political anger

 GHN News - “Substantial numbers of voters feel that that their interests and concerns are not represented in a politically dominant White House,” says a law professor who suggests a two-person Presidency.

Each of the last two Presidencies, that of Pres. Barach Obama and former President George W. Bush, has brought increased political dissension so that President Jimmy Carter declares political divisions are greater than ever before in history.  University of Iowa professor David Orentlicher suggests a way to change that.

Orentlicher believes there are reasons why people feel frustrated by politics and that the way to answer these frustrations is to create a two-person, multi-party presidency, Orentlicher, who teaches at the Indiana University-Indianapolis law school, continues his discussion with this observation: “With a two-person presidency, a much higher percentage of voters will have their preferred candidate serving and will be much more comfortable with the initiatives that emerge from the executive branch.”

A single executive-Presidency to head the Executive Branch was conceived by the framers of the Constitution as a way to provide a check and balance on the legislative branch of government.  But that was then, and now is now, since time has demonstrated a different problem has developed, according to Orentlicher.

“It has become clear that the founding fathers misjudged the consequences of a single president,” Orentlicher said. “They did not anticipate the extent to which executive power would expand and give us an “imperial presidency.” They did not predict the role that political parties would come to play and how battles to capture the White House would greatly aggravate partisan conflict. They did not recognize that single presidents would represent party ideology much more than the overall public good.”

The Executive Branch, represented by the President, has become increasingly so powerful that both parties put a lot of money and campaign activities directed towards securing that powerful position.  In addition, Congress has become divided as members line up according to political party ideals as opposed to concerns for the nation.  When the opposite party has the Presidency, the other party spends a good deal of time staging negative campaigns to upset the balance of power.  A dual Presidency might stop that.

“A dual executive, with the two presidents coming from different political parties, would promote the kind of political harmony that the framers thought desirable,” he said. “Instead of one major party being out of power and working to brake—and break—the president’s administration, both major parties would have a stake in the success of the executive branch.”

Orentlicher said the job has also become so large it is difficult for one person to manage the responsibilities. Furthermore research indicates two people working together make better decisions.

“Just as the framers protected against the accumulation of power and factional conflict by dividing power and requiring it to be shared, so would a two-person presidency work by dividing the executive power and requiring it to be shared,” Orentlicher said. “Had the framers anticipated the extent to which presidential power would expand, they would not have chosen to rest it in just one person.”

Orentlicher presents his idea of a two-person presidency in his paper, “The Broken Presidency: How it has Failed Us and how We Can Fix It.” It was presented recently at the American Political Science Association annual meeting.