Nor is the U.S. The U.S. venerates the plutocrat (generally). As to being interested in actual egalitarian ideas I would argue that Europe (and other nations that follow Europe more than the U.S.) tend towards a much greater idea of equality in general.
I think there is an error in the assumption that American’s vote for unqualified politicians. I would suggest that there are as many people voting against someone as there are voting for him (her).
In Australia our Prime Minister is the leader of which ever of the two major parties, Liberal/National or Labor, wins the election. Usually it is someone with many years experience in politics, either in opposition or in government or both.
But, due to the modern trend toward personality driven politics at the expense of policy driven politics, we have been entertained by the Labor party and the Liberal party each trying to portray the leader of the other party as being the richer individual. Malcolm Turnbull the leader of the Libs is worth about $130 million and PM Kevin Rudd with his wife is worth about $60 million.
Both in their first political speeches talked about their humble backgrounds and the fact that they were the products of single parent homes.
I think a lot of the people we’re talking about have the idea that being President isn’t a skill, like designing buildings or performing surgery. Instead, it’s a series of decisions on questions that people “like them” can and do hold opinions about: whether to sign or veto a certain bill, whether to send in the soldiers or the diplomats when trouble arises, etc.
So, to them, electing a president isn’t about finding a qualified person to carry out the duties of this job, because the only qualification is being able to hold an opinion. It’s about finding someone who will come to the same decisions that they would themselves, if only they had the time (and the power) to make those decisions on their own.
They don’t look for people “like them” in other fields because they recognize that skill is involved in those fields. They don’t have their own fiercely-defended opinions about which treatment is best for a certain disease, or which kind of support beam is best for holding a certain load; they recognize that they need an expert, not a proxy.
Earlier today I had an epiphany: the reason people love Sarah Palin so much is because she is Cinderella. I was going to start a thread about it tonight but looks like Merkwurdigliebe beat me to it…
Yes, but I don’t think that really has come into play here (at least with Palin), I mean let’s face it her record in the area is spotty. Sure she seems moral on the surface, good church goer, a real go-getter. Believe all the upstanding Christian things. But then there is troopergate; if this is true (big if there), it definitely(to my mind at least) throws her character into judgment. Then the whole “give me your resignation as proof of your loyalty” thing. Pretty snarky if you ask me. If I had a new boss who did this my co-workers and I would react universally with a “WTF, what a complete bitch.” Throws her character into question also. Or the whole I was against the bridge from the beginning when she is clearly on record as having supported it and leveraging ear-marks in general. Not very honest.
Or wait, are you talking about Obama? Sure, he seems to be pretty upstanding: the whole give back to the community thing instead of taking the high powered job. But there is the whole thing with the vacant lot next door… Otherwise I can’t recall anything else that calls his character into question. You are right, maybe people are judging his character and deciding on it. You, sir, have renewed my hope in America…
That’s an excellent point, Mr2001.
And to an extent it’s valid. There is no comparable experience to being the President, who is both very powerful and oddly powerless. In most situations, the President can propose, but not dispose; that is the role of the Congress. Only in military situations can the President act directly, and beyond setting the mission and determining the level of support and overarching strategy, any president who doesn’t turn ops over to the professionals would be an idiot. To do them credit, they all have.
Of course, during the current administration, the President, or at least the Administration has said to Congress (and the people) “Screw you, we’re going to do what we want anyway. Suck it up.” to an unprecedented extent. That is something that, had the people really understood (and bothered to care about), they would not have chosen. Insofar as people care about government at all, they like a system of checks and balances. And for whatever reason, Congress has chosen not to make an issue of it.
But W had it right to some extent when he said “I’m the decider.” The thing of it is, I’m better informed than the average Joe, and I want someone one heck of a lot more knowledgable than I am to be making decisions. I also want someone who is wiser than me, less impulsive and better able to foresee consequences. To heck with having a beer with him (I don’t like beer, or any alcohol actually - it just tastes bad to me), I want somebody who is both intelligent and wise. That’s the kind of person who tends to make good decisions. I’d also like the candidate to be good - a moral person who cares about others as well as him or herself.
For once, there actually seems to be someone in the race who qualifies.
“Fucking amateurs.” – Stanley Motss
Stranger
For the same reason people voted for Obama, because Oprah thought he was cute.
Obama has a lackluster record and since being elected to the Senate all he has done is NOT vote for the Iraq war and run for President. So why does anyone support him?
Because Oprah thought he was cute and gushed over him only slightly less than she gushed over Tom Cruise.
The fact is a rational voter is a myth. The current system of primaries allows small interest groups to take the nomination for their candidate whether or not he has a chance of winning. This is how we got, Mondale, McGovern, and Bob Dole.
In the end virtually all elections are really decided by the pocketbook. If people think times are good or good enough they keep the party in power now, in power. If not they change.
This election is a bit unusual since this is the first time since, what before the Great Depression where one candidate hasn’t been a president or vice president. So it’s not so clear “WHO” is “In power” with the Dems controlling congress and the Reps controlling the White House
Until and unless the public becomes better educated about politics, clever and well-written ads may be as much a liability (at least if you’re a Democrat running against a Rovian politician) as an asset. No, I’m being unfair. Adlai Stevenson was defeated twice at least in part because he was dismissed as an “egghead.”
We are a very screwed up people. We are so going to lose our competitive edge in the world, simply because as a culture, we don’t value education, and we hold teachers accountable for poor performance in schools, rather than the students and their parents. At 52, I think our developed nation status will probably survive through my lifetime (barring ecological or hostile catastrophe), but for some of you younger folks, I wouldn’t be too sure. The wealthy and the educated middle class should be fine, but beyond that? I suspect they’re going down.
If you think a woman smart enough to become a the most powerful woman in TV (or so she’s been called) is supporting a candidate because he’s “cute,” I suggest you think again. People can appreciate or like a person without supporting them politically.
And I can’t speak for anyone else, but no one I’ve ever spoken to is supporting Obama because of Oprah. In fact, no one I know ever watches Oprah.
ETA: I do agree that people usually vote their pocketbooks. More than they should, actually, because they’re very shortsighted about it. They refuse to see that things like infrastructure need to be maintained and that doesn’t come for free.
Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard.
McCain was 2nd from the bottom of his class at naval academy. Bush is a stumblebum. Palin went to 5 colleges in 6 years.
Sometimes we do well. Sometimes not so much.
There’s also the fact in Australia that you can be one of the most important people in charge of the nation (PM, Foreign Minister, etc) and still only earn a fraction of what you’d earn in charge of an investment bank. It makes me cringe when I hear about overpaid politicians - I’d rather pay to have the best and brightest running the country rather than running Macquarie Bank or Westpac.
Here’s a better question; why do Americans vote in elections without doing the due diligence to learn the truth about the candidates?
Hint: you’re wrong.
You could start your research here, where someone actually did a lot of the work for you. For instance:
Of the more important pieces of legislation he’s gotten passed are:
"The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act
The Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 that led to the creation of the searchable database at www.usaspending.gov.
And then there’s the Lobby-Ethics Bill that’s been hailed as “the most significant reform since Watergate.”
You’re free to continue to misrepresent these accomplishments as “lackluster” and do-nothing, but nobody with half a brain will believe you.
Fudge. I messed up one of the links, tried to go back and fix it, made it worse, then made it disappear before running out of time to edit. . .
Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act
Just a few more for you to chew on:
Obama Passed Law Requiring Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction Strategy To Secure Weapons And Usable Nuclear Material.
"Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced that a provision authored by Obama and Senator Hagel (R-NE) in the Senate and advanced by Schiff in the House requiring a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan passed as part of the omnibus appropriations bill. This provision requires the President to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 from the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose. The Senate passed the omnibus appropriations bill last night and the House approved the same bill today. It will now be sent to the President to be signed into law.
Obama Passed An Amendment Into Law That Pressured The EPA to Comply With New Lead-Paint Regulations After Seven Years of Delay.
In 2005, Obama passed an amendment, which became law, to the FY 2006 Department of Interior Appropriations Act prohibiting the use of funds in the bill to delay or contravene implementation of an existing but unmet statutory requirement passed by Congress in 1992 that the EPA rewrite regulations on dispersal of lead paint by home remodeling contractors by October 1996. As of July 2005, the regulations still had not been written. Weeks after Obama’s amendment passed the Senate, Obama received commitments in writing and during a Senate hearing that the EPA would comply with the law. According to an Obama press release, “In 1992, Congress required the EPA to write regulations relating to the dispersal of lead paint by contractors during home remodeling by October, 1996. As of July 2005, these regulations still have not been written. In April, Administrator Johnson stated that to address the problem of lead paint poisoning, the EPA ‘will determine what additional steps may be necessary, including regulation’ despite the fact that the 1992 law does not say the regulations are optional.” [SA 1061 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent, 6/28/05, Obama Press Release, 7/25/05; H.R. 2361, Became Public Law No: 109-54, 8/2/05]
Obama Passed A Law Requiring The Defense Secretary To Report On The Pentagon’s Efforts To Prepare For Military And Civilian Personnel For A Possible Influenza Outbreak.
In 2006, Obama sponsored an amendment to the FY 2006 Defense Authorization Act that required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the Pentagon’s efforts to prepare for pandemic influenza, including pandemic avian influenza, including status on the procurement of vaccines, public health containment measures that could be implemented on military bases and other facilities; surge capacity for the provision of medical care during pandemics; surveillance efforts domestically and internationally and how such efforts are integrated with other ongoing surveillance systems; the integration of pandemic and response planning with those of other Federal departments; collaboration (as appropriate) with international entities engaged in pandemic preparedness and response. [SA 1453 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent, 11/18/05; S. 1042/H.R. 1815, Became Public Law No: 109-163]
Obama Passed Legislation Prohibiting DHS From Entering Into Open-Ended, No-Bid Contracts For Emergency Response Activities.
“Legislation authored by U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) that will stop the abuse of no-bid contracting in the aftermath of a disaster was included in the final Department of Homeland Security funding bill likely to pass the Senate today. After Senate passage, the bill will go to the President’s desk to be signed into law…After Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency used emergency authority to enter into open-ended, no-bid contracts. What was meant to be temporary stop-gap authority ballooned into wasteful contracts that lasted many months and wasted significant federal resources. Obama and Coburn legislation will stop this practice by restricting the use of emergency contracting authority only to urgent needs in the immediate response to emergencies…On three separate occasions, Obama and Coburn have passed legislation in the Senate that would end no-bid contracting with Gulf Coast reconstruction funds. Legislation that would have specifically prohibited no-bid contracts with Gulf Coast reconstruction was stripped from a previously passed funding bill.” [Obama Press Release, 9/29/06]
Obama And Hatch [(R-UT)] Passed Legislation To Protect Individuals’ Rights To Continue Donating To Charities And Religious Organizations During Bankruptcy.
In 2006, Obama was an original cosponsor of a bill that protected individuals’ rights to continue donating to charities and religious organizations during bankruptcy proceedings. The Hatch-Obama bill responded to a court ruling that above-medium income debtors in Chapter 13 bankruptcy could not deduct charitable contributions, including religious contributions, from their payment plans. The ruling was based on an interpretation of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). Hatch and Obama authored S. 4044 to ensure that all individuals in bankruptcy, no matter their income, would be able to continue giving to charity and their church. The bill passed the senate by unanimous consent and was signed by the president. [S. 4044, Signed 12/20/06, **Became Public Law** No. 109-439]
Care to modify your previous assessment?
I think it’s an inevitable result of the disintegration of American education. As people become more and more ignorant of all the little bits of knowledge that make a person well educated, they become more defensive about this. This is the root of anti-intellectualism, in my opinion; a feeling of envy and, to an extent, self-pity, that leads to a need to bring others down to one’s own level. The thoughts I’m trying to express are way more subtle than I’m capable of making them sound, but basically I’m talking about a defensiveness that parallels the increasing ignorance of the average American.
This is a huge WAG but I always kind of assumed that American voting trends are greatly influenced by the significant rural population compared to other 1st world nations. Rural folks anywhere in the world tend to be more conservative and less educated than their urban counterparts and the US there are lots of them. But this is just a pet theory of mine that I’d like to throw out there so take it as you will.
I think this is the same thing that makes people start yelling about how pretentious somebody is the moment they try to express any thought deeper than the kiddy pool. But you’d think that they could make an exception in the case of the nation’s leader, for pete’s sake. It seems to me that it would be nice to nice to have a president who wasn’t an international embarassment, but apparently many Americans consider this a badge of honor.
Our roots as a country is the “why”. Our forefathers rejected allegiance to the British Crown.
Americans share a cultural anathema to the thought that our collective future is better off when we are ruled by a so called superior human being, such as a king. This is a cornerstone to our collective consciousness bequeathed by the founding fathers.
This country was made great by ordinary people with extraordinary pioneer spirit, who worked hard, who were willing to take risks and endure hardships.
Historically, the common American people from which we descended made risk assessments every day, sometimes when his/her life depended on making the correct decision. Our “fascination” with “normal people” is our cultural heritage. Those ordinary people are admirable and probably more trustworthy when the rubber meets the road than a person who has experienced life on a purely intellectual playing field.
Pinky
As no one has experienced life on a purely intellectual playing field, this seems kind of moot to me. If a candidate has worked himself up from lower class roots, has held jobs, supported him or herself, has run a campaign (none of which George W Bush had actually done without the support of Daddy and/or his friends), then he has demonstrated the ability to cope with a normal life. But living a normal life, which is what probably 99.99% of the population does, doesn’t strike me as sufficient qualification for the presidency. Necessary, perhaps (arguable - living normally is not a required presidential skill, but understanding normal life for most people is.). But certainly not sufficient.
Again, I want my president to be both smarter than I am (and without modesty, that’s fairly smart), better informed than I, and wiser than I am (there the standard is quite a bit lower, but I’d like the President to be MUCH wiser). I also want the President to be moral. I don’t care about his personal life, but I care about his policies. He can screw chickens, cheating on his sheep, for all I care, as long as he doesn’t do it in public. If these qualities can be found at all, they can be found in someone who has not grown up as a privileged aristocrat more readily than someone who has, simply because there are orders of magnitude more of the former.