Just how much damage could a poor US president cause in one term?

[Caligula's_Horse]

Lets start by getting this out of the way first. While this thread was very much inspired by the thought of Donald Trump winning the presidential elections, it is by no means limited to him personally, but instead seeks to answer the question in a more general manner, seeing as Trump is neither the first nor will he be the last of the popular incompetents who had a real shot at the White House.

The American government is famed for its early adoption of separation of power and inter branch checks and balances, and in accordance the concept is deeply rooted in the American psyche, and the constitution this psyche typically enshrines to the point of scripture. While the system has its loopholes and flaws, which can be handily demonstrated by how the office of president keeps racking up more and more power over the years (not necessarily saying its bad, mind you, just that it shows a limitation on the check's ability to preserve the status quo), the system still poses enough restrictions to actively hamper any attempts at reform, for both better or worse.

Presidents can be impeached, bills that don't enjoy a rare two thirds majority vetoed, the president commands the government while congress controls is purse strings, the supreme court can strike down laws based on its nigh permanent member's fancies, and the states themselves enjoy enough autonomy to have a real shot at wiggling out of the implementation of federal decisions they don't like. In addition, any unpopular president tends to cause the congress' majority to switch over to the other party soon after.
On the other hand, executive orders, while easily flipped by a future president, are no joke in the short term, and the president needs no one's approval before starting ill advised wars (the check for that was made irrelevant once nations stopped officially declaring war, so sending troops is all that matters, assuming the military isn't pushed to mutiny). The simple loss of face of turning his nation, his position, and the institutes he leads into a laughing stock should also not be discounted. And of course, having a president which simply isn't functioning properly as a president in his defined duties can be disastrous in the face of an emergency, should one of those stumble by on his neglected watch.

So with all that in mind, just how much lasting harm could an especially poor president do before he's either shut down entirely or at least has his efforts rendered ineffectual?

[PointOfViewGun]

How much damage did George Bush's first term did?

[Prodromos]

Well on his own the President can't do much. His job is mainly as enforcer of laws rather than as legislator. However if Congress passes a vaguely-worded law, the President could claim that his actions are merely an enforcement of Congressional legislation. That is where Congress usually comes in to tell him to quit being a douche. In reality, though, Congress is usually divided, and a President with, say, a 40% minority in the Congress can do a lot of damage. But this would be the President and a minority of Congress - not just the President - abusing a law passed by Congress.

When it comes to wars President is theoretically the CIC, but military orders have to go through the chain of command, and anybody can refuse to obey a disastrous order (e.g. let's invade Canada). When it comes to nukes, there are additional safeguards put in place to prevent the President from nuking people on his own. I believe the Secretary of Defense can overrule him, and, the Vice President can theoretically overthrow him temporarily.

You talk about Trump, but I remember back in 2008, the big fear was Obama. 8 years later he hasn't been able to do as much damage as we thought he would. I mean, he was publicly campaigning on a promise to create a private civilian security force for himself, that was "just as well funded, just as well trained, just as wellequipped as our military." I can only hope it was a reference to better equipment for the police or something, because this sounded like a brownshirt thing to me.

[athanaric]

WRT Obama, I think that the chief damage is in foreign policy. He does come across as not assertive enough, or "soft" on dictators, and his presidency has seen the emergence of major crises abroad (although also owing to several factors well out of his, or the US's control).
As for hypothetical President Trump, it's difficult to say. But any rift between him and the political, economic, and military establishment (given the massive protests against him from various places) might be exploited by foreign politicians such as Putin or whoever is in charge of China.

[fkizz]

Washington first "term" caused large financial damage to the British Empire.

[Ludicus]

As for hypothetical President Trump, it's difficult to say

No, it's not. Trump is an impossibility.Period.

WRT Obama,He does come across as not assertive enough,

In fact, he doesn't like atom bombs. Obama is an highly intelligent, humanist, cultivated President.

[fkizz]

Obama is an highly intelligent, humanist, cultivated President.

Too bad his good intentions gave ISIL a fertile breeding ground in Iraq

On Trump being an "impossibility", he just won more 4 states.

[gaunty14]

They could push the big red button on the 2nd day in office and cause a nuclear holocaust?

[Meebleborp]

This is a pretty interesting topic, and one I was thinking about recently. Could it be enough damage to cause some sort of popular uprising that would change the way politics work in America? For those who believe the system is irreparably corrupt, such a candidate might be worth voting for. I've actually heard the argument from some on the left that if the choice is between Clinton and Trump, voting for Trump may be the only chance to see real change in our lifetimes - for better or for worse!

How much can the President actually get away with on his/her own, though? Well, that's a bit tricky. Contrary to what is often stated, the President (or more appropriately: the executive) has a lot of power, and that has only increased in recent times. Between executive orders, signing statements on every controversial bill Congress passes, and Attorney Generals shutting down court cases just by mentioning the phrase "state secrets", the President can effectively work within all three branches of government. Granted, a lot of that power is limited when things come to domestic policy. While Presidents can start wars, assassinate enemies of the state, and spy on whomever they choose, it's much more difficult for them to enact sweeping changes via legislation.

Still, if the "threat" is ominous enough, or the President charismatic enough, Congress has proven more than willing to fold when the time comes.

In fact, he doesn't like atom bombs. Obama is an highly intelligent, humanist, cultivated President.

Then why, rather than move toward disarmament, is he spending ~$1 trillion to modernize all of America's nuclear weapons? Something doesn't add up.

Also: do humanists regularly order the bombing of other countries?

[Sir Adrian]

How much damage did George Bush's first term did?

This.

[the_mango55]

If we are talking about Trump specifically, his own party doesn't support him so he actually wouldn't be able to do too much. He could issue executive orders but those could be declared unconstitutional by the supreme court (not the concept of executive orders but the orders themselves if he decides to overstep his bounds).

I actually think Cruz could do a lot more damage in one term if he were elected.

[conon394]

Well on his own the President can't do much. His job is mainly as enforcer of laws rather than as legislator. However if Congress passes a vaguely-worded law, the President could claim that his actions are merely an enforcement of Congressional legislation. That is where Congress usually comes in to tell him to quit being a douche. In reality, though, Congress is usually divided, and a President with, say, a 40% minority in the Congress can do a lot of damage. But this would be the President and a minority of Congress - not just the President - abusing a law passed by Congress.

When it comes to wars President is theoretically the CIC, but military orders have to go through the chain of command, and anybody can refuse to obey a disastrous order (e.g. let's invade Canada). When it comes to nukes, there are additional safeguards put in place to prevent the President from nuking people on his own. I believe the Secretary of Defense can overrule him, and, the Vice President can theoretically overthrow him temporarily.

You talk about Trump, but I remember back in 2008, the big fear was Obama. 8 years later he hasn't been able to do as much damage as we thought he would. I mean, he was publicly campaigning on a promise to create a private civilian security force for himself, that was "just as well funded, just as well trained, just as wellequipped as our military." I can only hope it was a reference to better equipment for the police or something, because this sounded like a brownshirt thing to me.

You could try avoiding right wing nut job web sites.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/oba...ecurity-force/

[bigdaddy1204]

how much lasting harm could an especially poor president do before he's either shut down entirely or at least has his efforts rendered ineffectual?

1). The economy can be wrecked by crazy economic policies and reckless spending
2). Foreign relations can be permanently and irreparably damaged
3). Millions can die in ill-advised wars
4). Lives can be blighted by support for exploitative governments and corrupt companies around the world.
5). America's reputation can drop to all time lows

Basically, see George Bush.

[Mangalore]

Too bad his good intentions gave ISIL a fertile breeding ground in Iraq
...

That was Bush. Otherwise it might help to start blaming the Iraqi government for their own ineptitude. I don't really think beyond establishing a proper colony - which would have done other evil things - any of the inherent problems of the societies in Syria and Iraq (aka secular dictatorships suppressing their nations for decades with radical religion as one of the few pillars of opposition) could have been prevented by any foreign power. At least not without shooting a load a people.

[Prodromos]

7 years later and the Left is still pathologically obsessed with Boooooosh.

You could try avoiding right wing nut job web sites.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/oba...ecurity-force/

I see. Although one could argue that Obama has created his own security force in the IRS, etc. No need for brownshirts at all.

[Cyclops]

...

In fact, he doesn't like atom bombs. Obama is an highly intelligent, humanist, cultivated President.

Look he's a Democrat from Chicago, please don't try and sell him as kittens and wisdom. The guy graduated from a very tough dirty school of politics, and has proved able to force a few structural changes through a hostile Congress: he's a hands-on operator, not Gandalf.

I'm not surprised he's been ineffective at foreign policy, most US Presidents are isolationist by nature and do little more than push US business abroad (TPP etc). At least he didn't start a land war in Asia. What kind of knucklehead does that?

Too bad his good intentions gave ISIL a fertile breeding ground in Iraq

Bush removed a secular anti-Saudi regime from Baghdad, armed the populace, disbanded the police and failed to send enough troops to pacify the country. The second Iraq war has been a watershed in world history we will lament for centuries.

On Trump being an "impossibility", he just won more 4 states.

So he's the leading loser? Seriously its a very bad thing for US democracy that families start dynasties. To stop Hilary the Republicans are running corpses and Pennywise? Be nice if they tried to win for a change.

7 years later and the Left is still pathologically obsessed with Boooooosh.....

Not just the left. As a citizen of a loyal US ally I deplore the damage Bush's corrupt regime did to my country: Cheney's kleptocracy damaged middle east security, and has been a significant factor is swelling the ranks of Islamic terrorists.

The GFC passed my country by at the time (thx Uncle China), we're copping a bit of the backwash now, but the US was smashed by Bush's rules-free attitude to Wall Street.

"Bush" is not an obsession, he was a disaster for the US.

[Prodromos]

Not just the left. As a citizen of a loyal US ally I deplore the damage Bush's corrupt regime did to my country: Cheney's kleptocracy damaged middle east security, and has been a significant factor is swelling the ranks of Islamic terrorists.

The GFC passed my country by at the time (thx Uncle China), we're copping a bit of the backwash now, but the US was smashed by Bush's rules-free attitude to Wall Street.

"Bush" is not an obsession, he was a disaster for the US.

Nah, Bush just happened to be the first Internet president, so every low-info person out there thinks they know he was a terrible president, just because they watched a Chomsky thing on YouTube.

[BatGoat]

Nah, Bush just happened to be the first Internet president, so every low-info person out there thinks they know he was a terrible president, just because they watched a Chomsky thing on YouTube.

That's about the sum of it. Because they "found it on the Internet" it has to be right, right?

[conon394]

Obama created the IRS? News to me.

[Prodromos]

That's about the sum of it. Because they "found it on the Internet" it has to be right, right?

Back in the old days you had to actually read books and newspapers to be informed. Now you can just copy paste your talking points from TPM and Kos. Kids these days.

Obama created the IRS? News to me.

IRS is part of the Obama Administration, isn't it?