On complex issues such as economic policy or foreign military interventions, there are a huge number of experts out there, and huge number of different viewpoints that are all supported by some of those experts. Yet in the end, when deciding whether to veto a certain bill or invade a certain country, it’s the Presiden’t decision. So a good President would have to successfully determine which expert opinions to listen and separate the good from the bad, which means he or she needs to have a large amount of knowledge in the field.
Most people would consider President Obama to be intelligent, yet as President he was unprepared to cope with the rise of ISIS, cyberwarfare from Russia and China and other countries, breakdowns at the Veterans Affairs Department, the opioid epidemic, and other issues that weren’t in his area of expertise.
Did you even read my post? I’m guessing you didn’t.
The OP is obviously alluding to the fact we have a clown president and now everyone thinks they can do the job because they can exceed trump’s understanding of the world.
Your post then says we’re expecting too much of a president and reel off all the things we, in your view, expect a president to have.
So I responded to your premise: that we’re expecting too much of a president, in the context of the actual OP. I didn’t need to respond to your shopping list as other people already had.
When Nobel Prize-winning economists or a consensus of climatology experts have one view and crackpots on YouTube have another, do you need a large amount of knowledge in those fields to guess which advice to accept? Many of the scientific controversies currently important to American politicians take that form.
You seem certain that Obama dealt poorly with several issues but there are “experts out there” who would differ. Do you have the “large amounts of knowledge in the fields” to make your viewpoints better than Obama’s?
The whole ‘president’ title indicates a business. Yes we didn’t want a king, but such things as prime minister or similar could have been used, but the choice was made to use such a business term.
I think the reaosning is that the primary system has a major flaw: it favors celebrities, if it’s just one big celebrity running against a lot of boring experienced people. You put Oprah in there against 12 Democratic pols and she’s not going to win a majority of votes, but she’ll win a majority of delegates. It’ll be the same way Trump won.
That doesn’t mean I support the amendment. there is no substitute in democracy for voters to know what they are doing. If you have to regulate democracy so much that voters’ choices are restricted, either through term limits or qualifications, or God help us, media and advertising restrictions to control what information we get, then you might as well just not have a democracy.
My native UK puts limits on how much parties can advertise and also from when they can begin campaigning.
There is no suppression of ideas however. I think it works well: it avoids a contest of simply who can shout longest and loudest.
“President” was not really a business term in 1789. It was primarily a political term. The Lord President of the Council was one of the great offices of state in Britain, and the term “president” was used of anyone who presided in the king’s name either over a province or region, or over a particular institution. You also had Presidents in colleges and universities. Most of the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge had Masters, for example, but a few had (and still have) Presidents. And learned societies tended to have Presidents - the President of the Royal Society, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, and so forth.
The go-to term for use with reference to commercial corporations, ironically, was “governor”. You have the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies, and so forth. I’m not saying that there were no commercial enterprises in the eighteenth century whose chief executive was called a “president”, but it wasn’t common, and that certainly wasn’t the primary meaning of the word.
Wikipedia shows 16 “major” parties in the U.K. and dozens of minor parties. Someone who can’t find any fit there … still has access to YouTube and Yahoo.Rant.
I know little about U.K. politics, but still doubt you’ve identified a key obstacle to its “good democratic practice”.
Well once they get over some threshold of support they can start advertizing on TV.
I agree it’s not perfect: it’s a compromise. But it still looks much easier for a party in the UK to start up and gain wide support (and even representation in Parliament, although First Past the Post limits this) than in the US.
The reason it’s tough in the US is that the two parties are skillful at incorporating most significant ideologies. If there’s enough demand for a particular position on an issue, then one of the parties will adopt it rather than allow a fringe party to take 5-10% of the vote.
One obstacle that is not in the way is limits on advertising. If a billionaire wants to spend $10 billion in support of libertarian candidates or socialist candidates, he can do that.
Yes, that’s how it works. The parties *are *how things actually get done. If enough people want something, a party will take it on, as you say. If a tinhorn with an ego wants to promote the cause but without doing the messy work of actually getting it done, he can certainly do so - but he can’t stay out of the party system and then complain about the parties being obstacles rather than implementers. Those types do serve a limited purpose, by building popular support for an issue and thereby inducing the parties to address it, but without such a defining issue, it’s merely an ego trip.
I’ll throw in another and maybe even more important prerequisite. All potential candidates must pass a Top Secret security clearance process. If a person can’t pass that scrutiny, they should not be entrusted with our national security.
And before anyone responds with “the president gets to decide what is TS and what isn’t”, I submit that he/she shouldn’t be in that position in the first place if they themselves cannot be cleared.
There are currently eight parties and six independent members in the U.K. Commons. How has First past the post limited their ability to get into Parliament?
What happens is that it’s easier to buy both sides and so the issue gets framed by vested interests - the wider potentiality is not acknowledged if possible, and if it has to be s dismissed as 'extreme when it’s at least as sensible as the framed debate…
That’s how the mainstram got to be right of centre vs. off the scale right of centre, and the electorate got left behind somewhere in the 1960s.
In most states at least, a party has to have had its presidential candidate achieve a minimum percentage of the vote in that state in the last election for its candidates to be listed on the ballot.
But that’s it. There is nothing in the Constitution about parties, and their only effect at the national level is in organizing Congressional caucuses.
The left died in this country due to its own mistakes and the American’s unique culture. As happens everywhere, even Europe, the left comes to a screeching halt as soon as they reach the limit of the public’s willingness to pay more taxes. Even in Europe, that limit was reached long ago. Which is why there aren’t any strong real left parties in Europe anymore either. All the Labor-type parties went Third Way.
You think that allowing an unelected federal agency controlled by the current president to create an arbitrary set of criteria with which they can declare any competing candidate for president unfit is a good idea? I think that having a Democratically controlled FBI (or whoever does SSBI investigations) declaring that the person who won the Republican nomination for president is not allowed to run is the kind of thing that would destroy confidence in the electoral process and very well might lead directly to civil war.
And just using current standards, a single neighbor saying that you’re a security risk can disqualify you from a TS clearance. Do you really want to allow a single planted/bribed person in a neighborhood to bar a presidential candidate?
Slapping any subjective requirements onto who can run for office is extremely destructive to the idea of representative democracy.