I oppose government power and growth.
"Reduce government growth via an overpowered executive" feels like a Faustian bargain (this is why I don't vote). I can understand why it appeals to some, but it seems the ways in which it can go badly outweigh any short-term "gains".
It's in the same neighborhood as the rest of the elected politician's incentive playbook: namely, get elected on short-term band-aids that likely make the problems worse in the long run, long after you're out of office.
I'm still figuring out what I think about all of this but I read these two articles today and they both appealed, while appearing to be opposing arguments. That is hard to square and an indication that I'm confused. ...will continue thinking aloud in public...