Biden tried to delay the support. There’s just not much he can do short of locking down the entire government. The president does not hold absolute authority, and if the congress and secretary of state are being removed…
Biden tried to delay the support. There’s just not much he can do short of locking down the entire government. The president does not hold absolute authority, and if the parliament and secretary of state are being removed…
He has sufficient authority to curtail aid to Israel. He can also fire the secretary of state. Congress, not Parliament. He’s angry behind the scenes but unwilling to take action, which may have to do with the ongoing election.
What duties does the secretary of state hold that would go unattended until a new one is installed? How long would that take? And would he be able to actually get the committee to approve a candidate of such (comparatively radical) inclinations? What political and social fallout would he risk?
My statement “locking down the entire government” was an exaggeration, granted. But firing senior members of cabinet is a minefield and political dynamics tend to be slow to change course and often highly speculative.
Quick changes require overwhelming and clearly visible popular support, particularly during moments both critical for a politician’s career and uncertain enough to affect their stance, and even then it may be counterbalanced by uncertainty and reluctance to change stance.
Congress, not Parliament.
My bad, I wasn’t aware of the distinction (or that parliament has a more specific definition than “assembly of elected representatives”). I’ll fix that. Thanks for pointing it out!
He’s angry behind the scenes but unwilling to take action, which may have to do with the ongoing election.
I don’t envy his position. It’s far easier for us to complain and point out problems - which I’m not downplaying, don’t get me wrong - than to come up with effective solutions. It’s his job to do that, he chose it and he must be held to that responsibility, but all the amenities of wealth aside, I doubt that I’d enjoy navigating this mess where your every move gets you yelled at.
Personally, I hate when people say X should do something. What’s the something? If you don’t know, maybe there isn’t anything that can be done. If you don’t like the options, then why do you want him to act. Politicians aren’t magic, they can’t divine a mystical solution, choices are tough and every option has its drawbacks.
If he’s that dissatisfied with Blinken he can fire him. But if that’s not palatable then he has to stick with him. I assume they talk and Biden has given him direction, so that’s what’s left.
Typically, Parliamentary systems employ a prime minister as the chief executive, so tend to be fundamentally different from the American system.
Biden tried to delay the support. There’s just not much he can do short of locking down the entire government. The president does not hold absolute authority, and if the congress and secretary of state are being removed…
He has sufficient authority to curtail aid to Israel. He can also fire the secretary of state. Congress, not Parliament. He’s angry behind the scenes but unwilling to take action, which may have to do with the ongoing election.
What duties does the secretary of state hold that would go unattended until a new one is installed? How long would that take? And would he be able to actually get the committee to approve a candidate of such (comparatively radical) inclinations? What political and social fallout would he risk?
My statement “locking down the entire government” was an exaggeration, granted. But firing senior members of cabinet is a minefield and political dynamics tend to be slow to change course and often highly speculative.
Quick changes require overwhelming and clearly visible popular support, particularly during moments both critical for a politician’s career and uncertain enough to affect their stance, and even then it may be counterbalanced by uncertainty and reluctance to change stance.
My bad, I wasn’t aware of the distinction (or that parliament has a more specific definition than “assembly of elected representatives”). I’ll fix that. Thanks for pointing it out!
I don’t envy his position. It’s far easier for us to complain and point out problems - which I’m not downplaying, don’t get me wrong - than to come up with effective solutions. It’s his job to do that, he chose it and he must be held to that responsibility, but all the amenities of wealth aside, I doubt that I’d enjoy navigating this mess where your every move gets you yelled at.
Personally, I hate when people say X should do something. What’s the something? If you don’t know, maybe there isn’t anything that can be done. If you don’t like the options, then why do you want him to act. Politicians aren’t magic, they can’t divine a mystical solution, choices are tough and every option has its drawbacks.
If he’s that dissatisfied with Blinken he can fire him. But if that’s not palatable then he has to stick with him. I assume they talk and Biden has given him direction, so that’s what’s left.
Typically, Parliamentary systems employ a prime minister as the chief executive, so tend to be fundamentally different from the American system.