A unity of the Executive would be necessary in order to promote dispatch; -that a plurality of Persons would never do. When I was in Holland the States general were obliged to give up their power to a French Man to direct their military operations…. However power is always increasing on the part of the Executive
He supported the Presidential concept as the least worst option.
You do not need 435 people playing commander-in-chief.
We only need one, in the same way that Lenin only needed one.
Commenting on political parties in Cuba:
The president is the only one we have to make decisions. We have no one else.
You cannot have more than one leader worldwide. So, you would only have one Caliph for all of the Muslim world, so whoever that is, he would have authority over all of the Muslim land and wherever the Sharia is implemented.
I don't like to rule by committee. I like sort of an autocratic way of dealing with things.
To trample democracy with one’s feet and to give power to a single man over almost eighty million people is so terrible that one can very probably tremble over the events which will come here.
There can be only one Captain to a ship.
Sometimes a decision has to be made by a single individual, who has the authority to enforce it. That's why you need a captain. You can't run a ship by a committee-at least not all the time.
Paradoxically, preserving liberty may require the rule of a single leader-a dictator-willing to use those dreaded 'extraordinary measures, which few know how, or are willing, to employ.'