Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

Don't like gerrymandering either, but don't know a solution. All I know is that as a resident of the NY 2nd, I awoke one day in 2013 to find I was no longer represented by Steve Israel (D), for whom I had voted, but by Pete King (R), for whom I had not. It's only since then that I found that, compared to some of the R crazies, King is relatively sane.

Well, that was a bit of luck.  Though much depends on the adverb relatively . . . .

[(poco) Sforzando]

2.) When are Presidents the intellectual leaders for either party? 

Thomas Jefferson? Abraham Lincoln?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well, that was a bit of luck.  Though much depends on the adverb relatively . . . .

My point of course was that Pete became my congressman through a redrawing of the district map, not through an election. And in many respects I still despise him.

[Karl Henning]

My point of course was that Pete became my congressman through a redrawing of the district map, not through an election. And in many respects I still despise him.

Ho capito.

[Todd]

Todd's post is rather terse, but he makes a good point. I doubt that the two parties' intellectual leaders have been the same as their political leaders at any point since 1960. Barry Goldwater did have a big influence on his party, but otherwise, the thinkers tend to stay offstage.

I would say that it has been very rare in history.  Even Washington himself wasn't the intellectual leader of the Federalists - that was Hamilton, to the extent there was one intellectual leader at that time.  Jefferson and Madison might have been during their presidencies.  Lincoln maybe - a big maybe.  After that, it's hard to see a President who served as political leader and intellectual leader.  TR may have thought he was, but even he would have hesitated to tell that to Hay, Root, and Cabot Lodge.

To be sure, Obama has had it more difficult than any previous president

Even Washington and Lincoln?  I should think not.

[Todd]

My point of course was that Pete became my congressman through a redrawing of the district map, not through an election. And in many respects I still despise him.

Yes, but wasn't that due to New York losing two seats in Congress?  I didn't follow it closely, but my understanding is that Democrats controlled the process of redistricting in New York and purportedly went after King (his side of the story), but he held on, so you can't blame Republicans on this one.  It's the process, of course.

[Karl Henning]

Don't like gerrymandering either, but don't know a solution.

On Arch Street, near the corner with Summer Street.

[North Star]

Ah yes, American politics. In here we just add up all the votes...

[Karl Henning]

This is a society which refuses to retire the penny, for goodness' sake! 

[Mookalafalas]

I would say that it has been very rare in history.  Even Washington himself wasn't the intellectual leader of the Federalists - that was Hamilton, to the extent there was one intellectual leader at that time.  Jefferson and Madison might have been during their presidencies.  Lincoln maybe - a big maybe.  After that, it's hard to see a President who served as political leader and intellectual leader.  TR may have thought he was, but even he would have hesitated to tell that to Hay, Root, and Cabot Lodge.

  Not the "most intellectual person" in his party, but the "intellectual head".  In fact, you don't have to be president, by merely by winning the primaries you become the de facto head, and the platform you determine becomes the official set of goals of the party.  TR didn't have to listen to Hay, Root, and Lodge, and often didn't.   Even George W. eventually stopped heeding Cheney. You have to go back to the 1920s to find a US president who really seemed not to be in charge of his own party apparatus, and even that is debatable.  If the Republican party actually breaks with Trump after he has the nomination, it will be quite a show

[drogulus]

If the Republican party actually breaks with Trump after he has the nomination, it will be quite a show

    Why would Trump break with them? He broke them! Trump has made the Repub remnants his toys, if he wants to crunch the broken pieces into gravel he can do that or (heh!) show mercy, whichever is worse.

[Brian]

  Not the "most intellectual person" in his party, but the "intellectual head".  In fact, you don't have to be president, by merely by winning the primaries you become the de facto head, and the platform you determine becomes the official set of goals of the party.  TR didn't have to listen to Hay, Root, and Lodge, and often didn't.   Even George W. eventually stopped heeding Cheney. You have to go back to the 1920s to find a US president who really seemed not to be in charge of his own party apparatus, and even that is debatable.  If the Republican party actually breaks with Trump after he has the nomination, it will be quite a show

OK, so the difference is that you mean the political leader, figurehead, voice, etc. while Todd and I meant the guy who comes up with all the ideas behind the scenes. In our definition, the "intellectual heads" of the last 30-40 years are more your Buckley, Norquist, Krugman types. Cheney probably counts, in fact.

[Todd]

Not the "most intellectual person" in his party, but the "intellectual head".  In fact, you don't have to be president, by merely by winning the primaries you become the de facto head

The nominee for each party is in fact the party leader, but that's not the same thing as the intellectual head of the party.  The intellectual head of a party - or more accurately, heads of a party since there is really no intellectual head of a party - will help set the party platform and the policy ideas from which nominees and Presidents choose, for a variety of reasons, sometimes on principle, sometimes out of expedience.  To take an extreme example, William Jennings Bryan was not really the intellectual head of the Democratic party three times, he happened to get the nod three times.

If Trump gets the nod, and wins the White House, and the party breaks with Trump, it will be unusual but not entirely unprecedented (eg, Tyler, though under very different circumstances), and it will certainly be entertaining. 

[Mookalafalas]

OK, so the difference is that you mean the political leader, figurehead, voice, etc. while Todd and I meant the guy who comes up with all the ideas behind the scenes. In our definition, the "intellectual heads" of the last 30-40 years are more your Buckley, Norquist, Krugman types. Cheney probably counts, in fact.

  You think Obama is just a figurehead, voice, parroting journalists sentiments or party orthodoxy? Or that Clinton was? Or Nixon? The "types" you reference are hardly the motors of party change. They are, in fact "the voices"--because they are the ones we hear. They are rarely ahead of the curve--although they may seem like it, because we hear them before we hear the actual policies and decisions which are formulated in countless meetings behind closed doors.  Cheney probably does count, but only because W leaned on him so heavily for a time. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/bill_weld_says_donald_trump_rhetoric_could_be_an_act

I've wondered this myself. This could make The Donald a contemporary analogue to Shakespeare's Prince Hal, who tells us:

"So, when this loose behavior I throw off
And pay the debt I never promised,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men's hopes;
And like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glittering o'er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off."

But somehow I doubt it.

[Todd]

You think Obama is just a figurehead, voice, parroting journalists sentiments or party orthodoxy? Or that Clinton was? Or Nixon?

Presidents have power and exercise power, to varying degrees, and they may have original policy ideas of varying significance.  That is not the same thing as being the intellectual head of the party, the person or persons responsible for formulating policies and positions on everything from the degree of militancy of foreign policy, to civil rights, to energy policy unrelated to foreign policy, etc.  The only practical way that either nominees or Presidents are the intellectual head of their parties is that they select the options to pursue.  That is, they exercise political judgment and decision making.

Perhaps Keynes summed it up better:

"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist."

[Todd]

But somehow I doubt it.

Is there any doubt that a lot of what Trump does is an act?  He has honed his act after years in the spotlight and on TV.  Look at the David Duke situation.  Trump addressed this very topic, quite differently, when he considered running for the Reform Party nomination.  Clips from back then have been running, showing he is fully aware of Duke and his positions.  Perhaps he misjudged the Duke situation - but then he made the gaffe/stumble/whatever you call it the weekend before a lot of white southerners vote.  Could be coincidence. 

What are Trump's real stances on issues?  Does anyone know, other than Trump?

[Brian]

  You think Obama is just a figurehead, voice, parroting journalists sentiments or party orthodoxy? Or that Clinton was? Or Nixon? The "types" you reference are hardly the motors of party change. They are, in fact "the voices"--because they are the ones we hear. They are rarely ahead of the curve--although they may seem like it, because we hear them before we hear the actual policies and decisions which are formulated in countless meetings behind closed doors.  Cheney probably does count, but only because W leaned on him so heavily for a time.

Luckily, that's a false dichotomy. If the world divided only into intellectuals and parrots, we'd all be a sorry lot. 

[Karl Henning]

Luckily, that's a false dichotomy. If the world divided only into intellectuals and parrots, we'd all be a sorry lot. 

Separately, John Oliver effacing himself as a short-sighted parrot who works in a bank was one of the best lines in that show.

[Brian]

Is there any doubt that a lot of what Trump does is an act?  He has honed his act after years in the spotlight and on TV.  Look at the David Duke situation.  Trump addressed this very topic, quite differently, when he considered running for the Reform Party nomination.  Clips from back then have been running, showing he is fully aware of Duke and his positions.  Perhaps he misjudged the Duke situation - but then he made the gaffe/stumble/whatever you call it the weekend before a lot of white southerners vote.  Could be coincidence. 

What are Trump's real stances on issues?  Does anyone know, other than Trump?

As John Oliver put it on Sunday, "you are either racist, or you are pretending to be, and at some point, there is no difference there. And sure, he disavowed David Duke later in the day, but the scary thing is, we have no way of knowing which of his inconsistent views he will hold in office."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

EDIT: Hey, Karl just mentioned John Oliver too! It was a great, great, great segment!