Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[snyprrr]

Here's his grandfather, the then king Olav V, paying his fares on the tram in 1973 during a period of gas rationing (the Yom Kipput war or something),

gas rationing in Finland because of war in israel?

[The new erato]

gas rationing in Finland because of war in israel?

You got your flags confused.....as well. And Finland is a republic, no king there.

There was widepread gas rationing in Europe in 73 for a short period.

[Todd]

I leave the populists to you americans and the GOP; re my previous post.

I cannot view your prior post. 

Jackson was one of the founders of the Democratic party, by the way, and I'm not sure the Republicans who make it to the White House, or even run for the White House, can be called Populists.  Romney is not a Populist.  McCain was not.  Nor were Bush I or II, or Dole.  Maybe Reagan, but only after a drink or two.  The last real Populist who made a serious run at the White House was William Jennings Bryan - another Democrat.  But having just one elected to the top job left an imprint and changed the political landscape for a good while.

[Florestan]

man of the people

If you imply that US presidents are men of the people I take it as a joke --- and not a very good one at that. When was the last time a US president drove a mini-car in New York, parked it himself in front of a hotel and rubbed shoulders with those passing by? When was the last time a US president traveled by public bus paying the fee as any other traveler?

Populism is bad enough but the American type is the worst. It reminds me of a widely circulated joke in communist Romania. A teacher asks the pupils: "Kids, tell me, what does communism mean?". The wiseguy of the class answers: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people". "Well done,"says the teacher, "you've just got an A." To which the wiseguy replies: "Teacher, if you give me another A I'll also tell you which people..." 

[Todd]

If you imply that US presidents are men of the people I take it as a joke --- and not a very good one at that.

I was referring specifically to Andrew Jackson.  He did not drive a car.  He did, however, throw open the inauguration celebration to the rowdy masses in 1829, something that did not go especially well, at least to some.  He vetoed federal spending on public works because that was not the federal government's job in his view; he supported public works, he just thought they were for states to fund.  He killed the Second Bank of the United States in an effort to weaken financial interests.  He signed off on the Indian Removal Act to make room for white settlers.  Jackson is the only President that can be called Populist.  You need to put things in historical context, which you plainly did not.

I must say that your rhetorical questions are juvenile.  The President of the United States is a high value target for a number of people.  Current presidents do make sure to get out and rub shoulders with the masses when campaigning, but usually only in secure environments.  That's only sensible. 

[Florestan]

Current presidents do make sure to get out and rub shoulders with the masses when campaigning, but usually only in secure environments. 

That's precisely my point. They play the men of the people only when convenient for them (ie, when they beg the masses for election or re-election) and only in safe environments. Other than that they are as remote from the life of the ordinary people as it gets. Actually what you have in US is an elected king whose powers far exceed those of a constitutional monarch, democratic US-exceptionalism propaganda notwithstanding. But hey, if you feel good in believing US is a democracy in the genuine sense of the word, please go on and don't be bothered by facts... 

[Sammy]

That's precisely my point. They play the men of the people only when convenient for them (ie, when they beg the masses for election or re-election) and only in safe environments. Other than that they are as remote from the life of the ordinary people as it gets. Actually what you have in US is an elected king whose powers far exceed those of a constitutional monarch, democratic US-exceptionalism propaganda notwithstanding. But hey, if you feel good in believing US is a democracy in the genuine sense of the word, please go on and don't be bothered by facts... 

Elected King?  Nah, it's two terms at most.  How you can favor a monarch who is selected based on birth is beyond me.

[Todd]

Actually what you have in US is an elected king whose powers far exceed those of a constitutional monarch

Actually, that is incorrect.  One of the most imperial presidents in our history was forced from office.  Rarely do kings of any sort have that dishonor befall them.  If they make it to a second term, thanks to the 22nd Amendment, presidents usually become lame ducks for the last two years they are in office.  (Even FDR's power waned between the 1936 election and the onset of war.)  Presidents do possess immense power in the foreign policy arena, but even there they have limits.  When it comes to domestic policy, well, Congress controls the purse, and they do not take orders from presidents.  Obama could testify to that one.  Those are facts.

If presidents are as powerful as you claim, please explain why the US does not have a comprehensive, national education policy and standards that actually accomplished anything.  That should be pretty easy.  Or why is there no coherent energy policy?  To the extent US democracy does not reflect the will of the people, it is not because we have a particularly powerful president in most policy areas, but rather because there are assorted interests – corporate, labor (though weaker now), government agencies and other government interests, etc – that unduly influence legislation.  That and the Constitution has separation of powers as one of its basic foundations.  I view the messy aspects of American politics as good, though; nothing is as fearful as too much power concentrating in one person and his minions.

As to the president pretending to be a common man or man of the people, so what?  That's what people want.  Apparently, a lot of people want a president they can relate to, or have a beer with, or some other nonsense.  As such, candidates and office holders have to pretend.  Personally, I couldn't care less if a president is or is not a common person in touch with common concerns.  I'd prefer one who can address big issues and display leadership for the short time he (or eventually she) has any sway. 

[eyeresist]

Yes he's very decent. Married a single (never married) mother with one son, daughter of divorced parents from the definitive (lower) middle class (to a definitive public uproar) instead  of some jetsetting princess. Turns out he was an extremely good judge on character on that call as well. They met each other on some rock festival IIRC.

Can't help wondering if it was Wakken. That would make him the coolest prince ever!


Back on topic (sorta): Being outside America I haven't seen much of the campaign, but I read an article recently that made me think Obama (or his PR guru) must be a genius. Exhibit 1: the White House Beer. Exhibit 2: the new slogan "Forward." (including period)

[snyprrr]

Elizabeth Warren's kinda hawt in a school marm way? RRRRowwrrr!!

Sandra Fluke, on the other hand, yeeeuuuuccckkkk ,... couldn't you imagine having to hear that voice whining at you every day of your life, AAAHHHHHHH!!!!



Clinton looks a tad gaunt, kind of like Bill Maher's healthier brother.

[snyprrr]

BILL CLINTON 2012!!

BILL CLINTON 2012!!

BILL CLINTON 2012!!

BILL CLINTON 2012!!

haha!

[snyprrr]

Wow, and is Barry pandering to Clinton,... creepy.


I just don't sense the jubilation in the air. Who remembers the Greatest Convention Ever?

[eyeresist]

I just don't sense the jubilation in the air. Who remembers the Greatest Convention Ever?

I assume you mean this one?

[snyprrr]

I assume you mean this one?

Woo hoo, party down!!

[Florestan]

How you can favor a monarch who is selected based on birth is beyond me.

And yet there are simple reasons.

I favor such a monarch precisely because s/he is selected by birth and not by inherently divisive, controversial and fallible elections. I could not possibly favor a system in which someone whom I did not vote for becomes president with 50.07 % of the votes yet pretends to be my president (I being a monarchist), represent and protect my interests (of which he has no idea whatsoever) and act in my name (which he ignores completely) and extends this pretense to the other 50% who did not want him in office.

I favor such a monarch precisely because s/he never sought the power, s/he never run for office and s/he never had to resort to all kind of unrealistic and impossible to keep promises in order to get elected. I could not possibly favor a system in which one who expressly seeks power has to lie, bribe (and be bribed himself) and cater to vested-interests groups and lobbyists to get into power and then has to please them with political / diplomatic appointments and economic favors in order not to lose their support and secure it for the next elections as well.

I favor such an arrangement precisely because it is the only one in which the office of the head of state is open to people who lack the necessary qualities for, and have no interest in, winning elections yet who once in office prove to be excellent statesmen and render invaluable services to their nations. I could not possibly favor a system in which only (or mostly) power-hungry, shrewd, cunning, dishonest, populist, demagogic and plainly incompetent politicians have a chance to run and win.

[Florestan]

One of the most imperial presidents in our history was forced from office.  Rarely do kings of any sort have that dishonor befall them.

Rarely, indeed. Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France, beheaded; Nicholas II of Russia, shot; Alexander II of Russia, Alexander I of Yugoslavia and Archduke Franz Ferdinand heir apparent of Austria, assassinated; Alexander I of Bulgaria, Isabel II of Spain, Amadeo I of Spain, Alfonso XII of Spain, Alfonso XIII of Spain, Charles II of Romania, Michael I of Romania, Vittorio Emanuele III of Italy, Umberto II of Italy, Simeon II of Bulgaria, Peter II of Yugoslavia, Constantine II of Greece,  forced to abdicate...

To the extent US democracy does not reflect the will of the people, it is not because we have a particularly powerful president in most policy areas, but rather because there are assorted interests – corporate, labor (though weaker now), government agencies and other government interests, etc – that unduly influence legislation.

Exactly. This is democracy only in its weakest sense, that is every 4 years people at large vote who is going to rule them until next elections --- and that is pretty much all. Could you earnestly and hand on heart tell me that the people as people and as in the strong sense of democracy, that is power of the people, have any say in what the government policy should be and how it is to be conducted? I don't think so. Does the US president consult John Doe, Joe the plumber or Jane the housewife about how he should run the country? No. Do these people possess the ability and the knowledge necessary to even begin to understand the issues at hand? No. Where is the strong-sense democracy then? Obviously, nowhere. US (or any other state of the Western world, for that matter, Romania included) is an oligarchy in which different factions of the political and economical elite compete for power. And I hasten to add that it cannot be any other way in a representative system and it is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the elites are relatively enlightened and use their power in a moderate and liberal* manner. Problems appear when a critical mass of the elites is comprised of corrupt, dishonest, incompetent and power-hungry people, and given the structural, inherent flaws of the representative system this is bound to happen sooner or later. And then all the liberal and moderating elements, be they political, economical and constitutional, are of no avail for saving that country from bankruptcy and civil strife. Signs are already there in certain countries.

So bottom line, I don't criticize the US constitutional and political arrangement per se, but the pretense that it is democratic.

*BTW, a point worth stressing is that the very word "liberal" in its political sense was born in Spain, where the partisans of the Cadiz Constitution of 1812 (ie, the partisans of the constitutional, as opposed to the absolute, monarchy) labelled themselves los liberales and their opponents, partisans of the royal absolutism, los serviles.

[eyeresist]

I favor such an arrangement precisely because it is the only one in which the office of the head of state is open to people who lack the necessary qualities for, and have no interest in, winning elections yet who once in office prove to be excellent statesmen and render invaluable services to their nations. I could not possibly favor a system in which only (or mostly) power-hungry, shrewd, cunning, dishonest, populist, demagogic and plainly incompetent politicians have a chance to run and win.

Plenty of monarchs have been stupid, cruel, corrupt, greedy, etc. How do you vote those guys out?

[Florestan]

Plenty of monarchs have been stupid, cruel, corrupt, greedy, etc. How do you vote those guys out?

Obviously one can't vote out a monarch just as one can't vote him in. So I assume your question to actually mean "How do you get rid of those guys?"

Well, European constitutional monarchy has a history of roughly 200 years. Given this political and chronological frame, please show me one example of a stupid, cruel, corrupt and greedy monarch who was not forced either to abdicate or to behave himself.

[Todd]

I favor such a monarch precisely because s/he is selected by birth and not by inherently divisive, controversial and fallible elections.

This is nonsense, and when combined with this,

Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France, beheaded; Nicholas II of Russia, shot; Alexander II of Russia, Alexander I of Yugoslavia and Archduke Franz Ferdinand heir apparent of Austria, assassinated; Alexander I of Bulgaria, Isabel II of Spain, Amadeo I of Spain, Alfonso XII of Spain, Alfonso XIII of Spain, Charles II of Romania, Michael I of Romania, Vittorio Emanuele III of Italy, Umberto II of Italy, Simeon II of Bulgaria, Peter II of Yugoslavia, Constantine II of Greece,  forced to abdicate...

does not present monarchy as a particularly stable or worthy form of government.  There are some rather corrupt and vile people in your list, so I'm not sure this is a strong argument for your position, and then some predate the current practice of constitutional monarchy, so again, they don't help your argument.  Much better to have a head of state and/or government who can be voted out.

Exactly. This is democracy only in its weakest sense, that is every 4 years people at large vote who is going to rule them until next elections --- and that is pretty much all. Could you earnestly and hand on heart tell me that the people as people and as in the strong sense of democracy, that is power of the people, have any say in what the government policy should be and how it is to be conducted?

So bottom line, I don't criticize the US constitutional and political arrangement per se, but the pretense that it is democratic.

See, now you're just displaying your ignorance of the American system.  This is something Europeans often do.  Presidents do not consult with the Average Joe.  That is a stupid question or point, rhetorical or real.  And it is informed by the misunderstanding of political power.  Congress holds the power of the purse, and members of the House, in particular, but also the Senate, hold regular town meetings, etc, to get input from constituents.  The House also experiences a reasonably high turnover rate, reflecting changes in public mood, exactly as it was structured to do.

But you also need to move beyond the federal government to the state level, where a lot of policies that affect people even more directly are decided (eg, school funding, road funding, et).  And here, the people hold a lot of direct influence, and in a number of states, some funding matters and social issues are voted on directly by the people.  I live in such a state, and every couple years, and sometimes more frequently, I vote of a variety of initiatives directly, bypassing elected officials.  Here's the beauty, or ugliness, of this part of the system: anyone can get an initiative on the ballot, provided enough signatures of registered voters are gathered supporting having it on the ballot.  As such, people are often out looking for signatures.  This is about as democratic as it gets.  Instead, you focus on imaginary powers of presidents.

I should note, though, that as well considered as you think your belief in an antiquated, corrupt system of governance is, it really reflects a tendency of some people to want to have more powerful central government in times of stress.  In the 1930s, Fascism and Socialism gained ground with a lot of people, including some notable intellectuals.  They were wrong.  The current economic troubles have seen some of the same thing – witness the reemergence of true far right politicians in a number of European countries – so your support for a system of, by, and for the past is understandable in that context, especially when you consider your part of the world.  Perhaps people in Romania would be better off if ruled by a king or queen.  That's too bad.  That's not the case in the US.

[Brian]

So bottom line, I don't criticize the US constitutional and political arrangement per se, but the pretense that it is democratic.

There is no such pretense. The United States is a representative republic and always has been. The use of the word "democratic" is generally one of these things:

(a) a reference to the political party;
(b) an accidental misuse;
(c) the product of ignorance;
(d) pertaining to local politics;
(e) something about people in California voting on another crazy law.

Uh but anyway...

There's a convention going on?