Home >> Featured >> CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Does Not Think Highly of America

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Does Not Think Highly of America

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Does Not Think Highly of America”.

READ:  Full Speech: Vice President Mike Pence speaks at CPAC 2017

Looking for more great news and commentary from a conservative perpective? Visit our homepage!

About R. Mitchell

Rich Mitchell is the Sr. Managing Editor of Conservative Daily News. His posts may contain opinions that are his own and are not necessarily shared by Anomalous Media, CDN, staff or .. much of anyone else. Find him on twitter, facebook and

No comments

  1. Personally, I think this is a setup. It is nothing but an attempt at social engineering in trying to set the stage for getting people so dissatisfied with our government that we will demand a change in our governmental system. The result will be that we will become more like Europe. Exactly what liberals want. Also, it will allow them to push more of their crap onto society.

  2. You are stopping at the idea of a Prime Minister without considering the impact of a coalition, or parliamentary system.

    The President, by himself is not the issue. It is the body, the Congress v. Parliament that presents the problem.

    You, as would Fareed, would give power to the legislature by removing the check that the President represents. This would push the framework to be progressive in nature – lots of change very quickly. That also assumes that government fixes much of anything. Government is best kept small by having checks on powers in a balanced relationship.

    I believe you both misunderstand the intent of the Constitution.

  3. Rich, I think that you’re thinking of Zakaria’s thought experiment in a partisan way rather than in the institutional way that Zakaria meant.

    If American operated under a parliamentary system, rather than dividing the executive and the legislature as the current system does, the head of state and head of government would be divided. The US would have to be a republican parliamentary system rather than a Westminster constitutional monarchy, so you would still have an elected President as Head of State, filling a largely ceremonial role, but who could exercise the equivalent of reserve powers. In a republican parliamentary system, the elected President may still veto a bill that passes Parliament, depending on how this hypothetical constitution would be set up.

    And even if Prime Minister Obama and his Democratic majority in the House of Representatives passed a health care bill, the Senate would still have to pass it and could make amendments. (Think of the Australian system here).

    Even if Prime Minister Obama succeeded in passing his health care legislation, the Democrats would be massively defeated in the next general election three or four years later. Upon the election of a new parliament, the Republicans could form a majority government and then repeal the healthcare bill and restore the status quo.