Meet Tom the Average American. He’s running for President in 2016.
Tom is a fictional character, and 36 years old. He’s an average American in just about every way. He has a wife and two kids. His IQ is 100. He works as a manager at a grocery store and earns $35k a year. He drives an old pickup truck.
Tom has a high school diploma and went to college for one year before dropping out. He’s never been outside the United States, except for one trip to Canada. He has a tendency to stutter a bit. He’s a bit short (5-feet-6) and overweight. He is a big fan of hockey and basketball.
He can only name ten countries on a world map. He knows nothing more about climate change, the UN, Wall Street, Israel, the economy, terrorism, Gaza, the Ukraine or such issues other than what he can glean from a quick glance at the front page of a newspaper. Fact is, he usually skips to the sports section.
Tom’s political views are unknown, but since he’s average, he therefore isn’t an extremist of any sort.
Now, imagine Tom is running for President in 2016 (don’t ask how or why this happened), and here is the important part: Tom is running against the nominee of the political party you most likely oppose.
In other words, if you’re a liberal, then Tom represents Mr. Average American running against the Republican presidential nominee for 2016 - whoever he or she is.
If you’re a conservative, then Tom represents Mr. Average American running against the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016 - whoever he or she is.
Assume that Tom will have no advisers if elected President and will have to make all decisions on his own.
Who do you vote for?
Seeing as Tom is a fictional character, I can’t vote for him. Fortunately, most other people won’t vote for him, so a third party is going to be viable.
Okay, okay. I’ll treat him as non-fictional. If he has average views, against the Republican’s ultraconservative ones, I’d vote for him. An incompetent president is better than a qualified one that is working against what I think is best for this country.
Plus, being of average intelligence, I think he’ll realize he’s over his head and delegate.
If Tom were dumb and, thus, dangerous, I might have to hold my nose and vote for the other guy. Rand Paul’s not that bad, really.
Edit: I would like to clarify that whoever Average American Tom runs against in this hypothetical scenario is going to be a very seasoned, experienced politician, like you’d expect of a presidential candidate.
Someone on the same level as Hillary Clinton or Rand Paul, etc.
I would say the complete opposite and have voted for candidates for governor and president whose politics I disagree with but are more effective. Most of the role of executive (particularly at state and municipal levels, but also federal) is about making sure things get done. Throw in that the vast majority of what gets done isn’t controversial, except possibly in regards to how much and how to pay, (most of us want roads paved, criminals caught, taxes collected - sort of, food inspected, etc.).
If he can’t make that stuff happen then he can’t do the job at all.
And for the how much and how to pay the legislature is involved and I don’t apply the same logic to them. For them it’s how closely do they align with my positions and how unlikely are they to be majorly corrupt.
I want to fight the hypothetical: of course he’s going to have advisors. He’ll ask the guys at the barber shop.
I voted for Tom…but I’m dubious. In practice, he’s going to be the puppet of the first guy who catches his elbow. He’s going to be the pawn of the lobbyists.
But…one nice thing about it…it shifts the balance of power WAY back toward Congress. For instance, while Tom is performing inept foreign policy, Congressional Delegations will be doing the real work via back channels.
The Speaker of the House would be the “real” President during Tom’s rather amusing only term in office.
In other words (prepares to duck) Tom is Sarah Palin. Way over his head and probably too ignorant to know it. I’d like to know who Tom is running against. Fringe of the other party loon or middle of the party competent? I’d take the middle of the party competent. Loon makes you think you’re hosed no matter what you do.
It depends. If the Republican candidate is Sarah Palin (I don’t know how seasoned a seasoned politician we’re talking about), then my vote goes towards Tom. If the candidate is more Romney-esque, I’d probably grudgingly vote for him.
I’m surprised how many liberals opted to vote for the Republican nominee. You’d rather vote for someone who might be pro-life, might be a climate-change skeptic, might be pro-traditional marriage, might support deportation of illegal immigrants, might support even more military spending, might support cuts in welfare, might oppose raising the minimum wage, might be a creationist…than vote for Average American Tom?
I would not vote Republican if you put a gun to my head, and even then it would be a tough choice. So Tom it is and hope for the best. Certainly couldn’t be worse.
I know, I know. Don’t fight the hypothetical and all that. But this part:
Just does not make any sense. You might as well say that Tom is Doogie Howser, and he’s only 14 years old. And also that he openly, no-whackjob-conspiracy-theories-about-it, was born in a foreign country, of foreign parents, and only became a U.S. citizen by naturalization last Thursday.
All presidents have advisers. All conceivable presidents, of whatever party or political tendencies or personal leadership style, will have advisers. Hell, the very first decisions a new president makes are choosing a whole boatload of advisers, from the White House Chief of Staff to the Secrety of This and the Secretary of That and the Secretary of the Other Thing, along with various other positions (National Security Advisor) and sub-cabinet positions and so on and so forth.
I guess you could say that Tom will probably ask all his friends and drinking buddies down at the Moose lodge for advice, and they’ll probably be the ones he’ll nominate to be Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security and Ambassador to the United Nations and so forth. But he’ll have advisers, just by the nature of the job of President of the United States.
I’m fighting the hypothetical as well, and refusing to participate in the poll. There is no freaking way a major party is going to send yer basic reality show contestant into the lists. Thus, we will not be seeing Tom on the ballot.
That said, it is categorically unacceptable for the U.S.A. to ever again have a Republican in the presidency. Just a reminder, in case people are forgetting.
I’d vote for the experienced conservative. I read a quote somewhere, years ago, that I’m probably mangling: it is better to favor evil over incompetence, because evil sometimes sleeps. In other words, I’m not going to disagree with the conservative president on everything he does. And there are some functions of the office that aren’t partisan. The experienced pol will do well on those things, even if he’s otherwise pushing an agenda I dislike. “Tom” is basically incompetent for the position. I may agree with more of his agenda, but if he’s instituting policies I like in ways that are fundamentally broken, not only am I not actually getting the policies I want, he may so badly screw the pooch with them that the policy as a whole is irretrievably tainted. And he’s less likely to be successful at the non-partisan parts of governing, too.
This condition makes it hard for me to visualize the scenario. Will he appoint his low-IQ drinking buddies to the Cabinet? What will Congress think about all this? Do we assume that Tom is a maximal caricature of the Dunning–Kruger effect?
IMO, we tried this experiment in 2000, electing an under-qualified man. He did have advisers though, but unfortunately made a very poor choice for his main adviser.
I put that there to prevent people from saying, “We’ll just surround Tom with super-knowledgeable advisers and he’ll be okay.”
The real point of the thread is - would you trust the judgment of an ignorant, inexperienced person, or someone you disagree with (a Democrat if you’re conservative, a Republican if you’re liberal)?
This is the best hypothetical I have seen for some time, kudos to the OP. I voted for the second option, hoping you won’t mind a Brit sticking their oar in. As others have said, a career politician is going to do a better job overall than Tom.
Not sure why the OP said that the Republican candidate might be pro-life etc. - surely Tom might be all these things as well, as far as we know? Although I disagree with it, I wouldn’t say being pro-life is an ‘extreme’ view for the ‘average American’, and nor are most of the other examples mentioned.
Basically, I see Tom as being quite similar to Dubya in many ways. I’d rather have someone competent in charge, thanks. Presidential candidates, by definition, ought to be the cream of the crop, not Mr Average.