Does America hold it's leaders to lower standards than other developed countries?

[Nakura]

The prime minister of South Korea was forced to resign because his administration didn't handle a boating accident properly. Meanwhile, the American president has carelessly given weapons to Mexican drug cartels and al-Qaeda operatives in Syria, while simultaneously trying to disarm his own people. As if that wasn't enough, he's also signed into law a bill that allows for the indefinite detainment of American citizens, used the IRS to target political groups and can't even negotiate with his own government. He's also hurt relations with our allies in Europe, Southeast Asia and Israel; not to mention botching the Benghazi attack and the Crimean crisis.

Just like in South Korea, most developed countries quickly dispose of leaders who prove to be ineffectual (i.e. can't get anything done) or incompetent. If Jung Hong-won is being deposed over a boating accident, then why isn't Obama being held accountable for everything that his administration has done? This isn't an anti-Obama thread, Bush got off scotch free for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War as well.

Part of it has to do with most developed countries having a parliamentary system, where the parliament can dismiss their head of government with relative ease. However, the United States also has a system where Congress can eliminate a president, known as impeachment, and there certainly are enough reasons to warrant an impeachment of President Obama. This isn't about impeaching any particular president, however, this is about why Americans and their elected officials hold their leaders to lower standards than those in developed countries.

Why isn't America more like the rest of the free world and more open to the idea of Congress removing their head of government? Certainly the Founding Fathers intended for ineffectual and incompetent presidents to be replaced by Congress, especially given that most of the Founding Fathers were opposed to a strong executive branch.

[conon394]

The prime minister of South Korea was forced to resign because his administration didn't handle a boating accident properly. Meanwhile, the American president has carelessly given weapons to Mexican drug cartels and al-Qaeda operatives in Syria, while simultaneously trying to disarm his own people. As if that wasn't enough, he's also signed into law a bill that allows for the indefinite detainment of American citizens, used the IRS to target political groups and can't even negotiate with his own government. He's also hurt relations with our allies in Europe, Southeast Asia and Israel; not to mention botching the Benghazi attack and the Crimean crisis.

Just like in South Korea, most developed countries quickly dispose of leaders who prove to be ineffectual (i.e. can't get anything done) or incompetent. If Jung Hong-won is being deposed over a boating accident, then why isn't Obama being held accountable for everything that his administration has done? This isn't an anti-Obama thread, Bush got off scotch free for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War as well.

Part of it has to do with most developed countries having a parliamentary system, where the parliament can dismiss their head of government with relative ease. However, the United States also has a system where Congress can eliminate a president, known as impeachment, and there certainly are enough reasons to warrant an impeachment of President Obama. This isn't about impeaching any particular president, however, this is about why Americans and their elected officials hold their leaders to lower standards than those in developed countries.

Why isn't America more like the rest of the free world and more open to the idea of Congress removing their head of government? Certainly the Founding Fathers intended for ineffectual and incompetent presidents to be replaced by Congress, especially given that most of the Founding Fathers were opposed to a strong executive branch.

Because none of the thinks you suggest rise to the level of incompetence or what not unless you dislike Obama. The world happens and nobody is perfect. The South Korean resignations seems both pointless and silly. Does the PM really have any particular responsibility is said situation was he directing every rescue attempt?, signing a memo approve excessive overloading, reducing safety inspections?

Let's see now... In laundry list you is one both sort of political The IRS thing for example did produce resignations and just like Fast and Furious was not a presidential level decision.

Mexican drug cartels

This one really is a head scratch because while Fast and Furious was ineptly run it did correctly connect the massive amount of US gun sales to arms drifting to criminals and yet you also attack the man for " trying to disarm his own people".

can't even negotiate with his own government

Not sure what you mean one this one unless you think he is supposed to special magic to make house republicans love him or something the US government was designed to be very not a parliament - that is just the way it works or does not.

[QUOTE]He's also hurt relations with our allies in Europe, Southeast Asia and Israel[/QUOTE}

Oh god oh god no - specific example please and really Israel? When they stop sucking at our tit and turn to Russia I'll care - but honestly they need more slap down more often so they are reminded of who is the client and who is the Patron with the check book and UN veto and the military support.

not to mention botching the Benghazi attack and the Crimean crisis.

At the risk of sounding callous I see no botch in Benghazi. Being a diplomat requires risk and that risk escalates in unstable backwater places like Libya. What do want Special ops all around the world no more than 30 minutes or some such from every US facility - going to pay for that how? Or maybe make every US embassy a fortress? Again show me the money.

How did the US botch the Crimean issue - really we should be what at war of a tiny bit of land that was mostly already run by Russia part of Dysfunctional nation that everyone more or less agreed was a buffer between NATO and Russia? What is your non Botch fantasy here - war?, Making Europe risk loosing its source of Natural Gas? And how do we do that anyway?

[Col. Tartleton]

Most of the Founding Fathers wanted a powerful executive branch. Like the elected king in Poland. They wanted a Federal Republican Constitutional Monarchy.

That's why the President is elected by a College of Electors from the various states, not the people. Democracy was not viewed positively until the 19th century. Republicanism was considered a better way to organize the aristocracy and bourgeois as equals along meritocratic lines, it was not intended to replace the nobles and the rich.

Most of the Founders had large slave plantations, last time I checked that makes them landed aristocrats. The ones which didn't were still leading Bourgeois figures like my man the esteemed lawyer John Adams or the scholar Benjamin Franklin.