Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not reading through all, but I do think we'll have a popular President. The first party to figure out that most people will tolerate a moderate. I think most people are growing tired of winner take all politics. When Presidents have to say they have a mandate from the people, the likely don't have one at all.
The Dems need to put their socialism wing in check, the Repubs need to let their tea partiers go. First to the middle wins.
Firstly, the Tea Partiers disappeared - in a poof. They were obviously never for real, something which was quite obvious because their formation was the same month Obama was sworn in. OTOH, they loved that tax cut out of debt and deficit and - just when the budget was almost balanced - now that we will see Trillion dollar deficits for the foreseeable future due to the King of Debt. They are fine with that also.
They were never for real. It was partisan astro-turfing. What they were really saying was "we want tax cuts for us from debt and deficit...which others will have to pay for".......
So we don't have to worry about that one.
If I thought Trump was an actual thinking and feeling human being, I would wonder why he didn't follow your (and my) suggestion of representing ALL the people. After all, you'd think it would be especially humbling to lose the popular vote by millions and then be the most unpopular POTUS in recorded history. A normal human being would see that as "well, I'm in the office, but not supported by American in general - let me see if I can govern in a fashion that is reasonable, logical, intelligent and not just throw rallies and red meat to those "uneducated" I claimed I love".......
But Trump cannot be guessed at or measured by usual logic. He doesn't do things for any reason at all - he is just chaos...bent this way and that depending on who last whispered in his ear or insulted him (perceived or real).
By any measure, Obama was very close to the center. Rather than trying to convince you I would ask you to look it up....in terms of political science. They have ways of measuring and judging these things. I'd say Clinton was center or even slightly center-right while Obama was slightly center-left. Slightly...which, IMHO, is fine (as is center-right).
I guess that is why he holds that 63% approval now. It's hard to imagine any POTUS getting too much higher than that - heck, that's almost a super-majority, enough to get a Constitutional Amendment through!
If he was a white dude it would probably be 68% or higher.
Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex and said this about social programs:
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
Think about that. Knowing those two things - that he wanted to stop the arms madness and his views on social programs, would you call him right or left? I'd say center-left. Maybe even further.
It's hard to even know where we are these days because a vast percentage of Republicans claim to be in support of what IKE describes as "stupid"...and yet, voters are stupid enough to elect these people.
Who would have even guessed so many people would vote against their own interests? They do so for only one reason I can see - they had HATE drummed into them and they believe propaganda. Otherwise, basic common sense would say that folks would not vote against themselves, their children and their parents having basic medical care, etc.
On a related note, GWB was not unpopular due to the current partisan nightmare. He was truly not up to the job and between the Wars and the Great Recession (and more) left the place a mess. He has already taken his place in history in the bottom 20% of Presidents, as is rightly deserved. I'm sure he's a nice guy but weighed against wars, suffering and tens of trillions in losses and misery which will take decades to recover, "pull my finger" just isn't going to save him from history.
On the scale of an FDR, absolutely not. The populace is too ideological and tribal. The tribal identity is the most important self-identifier for many people.
First off, mankind is ice to truth, fire to falsehoods, so it's going to take an academy-winning liar for that to happen, for any candidate will only lose votes by speaking the truth. And star power/charisma is also ultra important, even though charisma is unnecessary.
Barry Goldwater, in his 1964 campaign, foolishly told voters (imagine the seniors hearing this!) that funds for social security would run out in a specific year. Come on! Voters don't want to hear that, the truth!
I look with envy at the younger leaders rising in the world like Macron in France, Trudeau in Canada, and a younger one due to take over in Colombia. Let's hope to God the next President will be a lot younger. And let's end the embarrassment of at least not having a female VP!
It's a shame that more people don't put any value to Astrology, but I always do an astrological profile of whom I'm going to vote for. And those profiles are available free to anyone on Astrodienst.
The political landscape has changed a lot from when a populist like a Jimmy Carter could win with comparatively limited funds and little in the way of name recognition.
I didn't start paying too much attention until Ronald Reagan. My memory is of a nation that largely adored and respected the man. Then we had Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and now we have the Trumpster.
My understanding of history was that Eisenhower and Kennedy both enjoyed widespread popularity. Then we had Johnson and Nixon and Ford.
What has changed if anything? That is the great debate - well sort of anyway. Here are reasons for feeling that the days of a truly popular president may be over:
1) We evolved into a major surveillance state with an incarceration rate seven times that of the 70's. That is well documented, a quick Google search provides ample sources. It is harder to love a leader who embraces widespread spying of citizens.
2) Never ending wars and occupations. We are still in Afghanistan for example. Iran is being cued up and will likely be far more "troublesome" than the weakened Iraq that was invaded in 2003. People are tired of war and there is no end in sight.
3) The debt is, well, unbelievable. 21 trillion and Trump just went all in. Cutting income, increasing spending, and pounding the expensive drums of war. Has not started the war but his picks certainly guarantee a very strong degree of military machismo. As shown by calling those who shy away from torture "p^^^^^s". Oh my. Bolton - one of the biggest war mongers in Eviltown DC. Haspel - the queen of torture. Quickly dismissing the only dove in the cabinet.
4) The rich get much richer while the numbers of newly poor have simply exploded into the tens of millions. California has close to a majority in poverty. People may say that we are wealthier than ever. If you plop a billionaire into a ghetto, the average income suddenly looks much better.
5) The internet. It is more difficult to have secrets now. I wonder if the highly promiscuous Clinton could have survived the age of the internet. Trump may also feel the wrath in the future. The odds of that are good.
6) The divide between "liberals" and "conservatives" is much worse than it has been in our lifetimes. It is simply vile.
I believe that the divide has changed any previous pretense of civility......sad to say...I do not think our society will/can unring this bell.
I think it will only get worse as it seems to have become "normalized". The young people being taught by example that rabble rousing and protesting is the norm.....is what I predict will continue.
Kennedy has been more popular after death than during his Presidency. Hindsight is 20/20, plus the "Camelot" propaganda that took root after he died and his widow moved on effectively bathed his Presidency in nostalgic sepia tones. During his tenure, he was criticized for nepotism (hiring his brother as Att'y Gen'l), among other things, by Republicans.
Jimmy Carter wasn't a populist. The only reason he won the election, was that he was running after Nixon was ousted, and the public was sick of "Tricky Dick" and corruption. Carter ran, basically, as a good, honest guy, and was swept into office. To a great extent (and Carter acknowledges this), it was Nixon who paved the way for relatively-unknown Carter.
Will we have a popular President? Well, both Parties have to do a much better job in identifying suitable leadership. And a certain Party needs to stop gutting the federal budget, to give away more money to the rich. True leadership (vs. following polls before deciding one's position) combined with the ability to relate to, and inspire, the public is a gift, a certain rare type of genius. But I think one step in the right direction would be for Presidents to stop dumbing-down and colloqualizing their speech patterns, and to stop trying to buy support by undermining the tax structure of an already hobbled economy.
Popular? To which faction? Both parties are appealing to widely different demographics, who are as far apart as the Radical Republicans and Democrats during Reconstruction. Following that, the Democrats grabbed the Dixie-crats, the working class, disadvantaged whites and later Afro-Ameriacns into their New Deal coalition. Then, it started to lose (abandon?) the Dixie-crats, disadvantaged whites and the working class, and the Republicans gobbled them up. Trump's victory was the culmination of this trend.
I don't see it being reversed any time soon, unless moderates and independants of all genders, ethnicities and classes begin to coalesce to form a new party, just as the Republicans did in the Election of 1860.
The political landscape has changed a lot from when a populist like a Jimmy Carter could win with comparatively limited funds and little in the way of name recognition.
I didn't start paying too much attention until Ronald Reagan. My memory is of a nation that largely adored and respected the man. Then we had Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and now we have the Trumpster.
That bolded part should have resulted in a closed thread immediately. You ask why and then you give the answer. You are part of the problem and don't even realize it.
In a later post someone else on the left points out the disparity of opinions between the Conservative and Moderates, making the assumption that the far left are moderates, by ignoring his own stance.
When the left stops ignoring the successes of a president they didn't vote for is when we will start having truly popular presidents again.
BTW, I have no interested in hearing garbage like "the polls mean nothing". If that's your best reply, don't make it.
Back to the topic though:
We cannot have a truly great President until a consensus emerges about what policies a president ought to be pursuing. Frankly, there is simply too great a divide in this country between moderates and conservatives for that consensus to emerge. That may change at some point. However, until it does this country will be governed by fragmented coalitions in the presidency and the Congress that vary dramatically from one election to another.
Perhaps, what is even worse than this is that presidents no longer govern by trying to win people over. They govern by adopting a set of policies that deliberately polarizes the country and gets their base to come out and vote.
Frankly, I see little hope for anything, but a very divided America during the remaining years of my life.
From the far left, they consider themselves moderate? So, the far left is never responsible for the divide? maybe there will someday be a consensus, but for it to happen, those on the far left or far right have to realize that they are on the far left or the far right and then moderate their stance. Until then, people like you are part of the problem, not the solution.
From the far left, they consider themselves moderate? So, the far left is never responsible for the divide? maybe there will someday be a consensus, but for it to happen, those on the far left or far right have to realize that they are on the far left or the far right and then moderate their stance. Until then, people like you are part of the problem, not the solution.
We hardly have a far left in this country...maybe a couple thousand people or a couple 10's of thousands at most.
It's more a question of where you weigh "the center" to be. My reading of history teaches me that we are modeled after both the UK (basic rights of individual and property) and France (no Monarchs, Kings or Priests in government, power to the people).
That being the case - our "regular" left (Obama, for example) would be well on the Right side of the Spectrum in Portugal (for example...since I know a "conservative rightie" from there and he is about where I am on the political spectrum...and I am considered middle-left).
It appears some people think the "middle" means vast tax cuts for billionaires, no cap to the military budget, the largest jailed population in the world, lower MPG and no health insurance for tens of millions. Some think the middle is "if you want that free cheese, pee in a cup and we have all rights to your head and your bodily fluids".
That shouldn't be the middle for the richest nation in the history of the world. Some of our "middle" is Police State stuff - possible only because of that very high "Security State" spending.
An even bigger problem is that if a center-right pol is elected by the "wrong" party, he will be pilloried full time on 100's of radio, tv and internet "channels" as being a socialist/communist and far-left. So how the heck can we be fair if that is the case? For many people it's more about their "team" and that they can never be wrong...than it is about stepping back and honestly measuring the situation...
I doubt that America even wants someone in office that "everyone loves". Some of this you can blame the internet for; the world is smaller.
I don't even want someone in office that everyone loves. It would feel like the anti-Christ was on the Earth or something. I like it the way that it is.
That bolded part should have resulted in a closed thread immediately. You ask why and then you give the answer. You are part of the problem and don't even realize it.
In a later post someone else on the left points out the disparity of opinions between the Conservative and Moderates, making the assumption that the far left are moderates, by ignoring his own stance.
When the left stops ignoring the successes of a president they didn't vote for is when we will start having truly popular presidents again.
I thought the term "Trumpster" was just a nickname, probably a positive one. Turns out I was mostly right:
"A Trumpster is a HUGE political advocate of President Donald J. Trump and his beautiful agenda." From the first source I found. Does it matter? All sources are attacked if they fail to meet the agenda of the attacker.
Closing the thread? Really? I attempted to posit a logically nuanced debate and seem to have mostly attracted numbers of the more militant factions. Rather then addressing the true nature of the debate, they choose to bounce off the walls with adversarial political diatribes.
My fear is that true popularity will be quite difficult in the face of current trends:
1) We evolved into a major surveillance state with an incarceration rate seven times that of the 70's. That is well documented, a quick Google search provides ample sources. It is harder to love a leader who embraces widespread spying of citizens. Mass Surveillance
2) Never ending wars and occupations. We are still in Afghanistan for example. Iran is being cued up and will likely be far more "troublesome" than the weakened Iraq that was invaded in 2003. People are tired of war and there is no end in sight. Never ending wars
3) The debt is, well, unbelievable. 21 trillion and Trump just went all in. Cutting income, increasing spending, and pounding the expensive drums of war. Has not started the war but his picks certainly guarantee a very strong degree of military machismo. As shown by calling those who shy away from torture "p^^^^^s". Oh my. Bolton - one of the biggest war mongers in Eviltown DC. Haspel - the queen of torture. Quickly dismissing the only dove in the cabinet. The breathtaking growth of the debt
4) The rich get much richer while the numbers of newly poor have simply exploded into the tens of millions. California has close to a majority in poverty. People may say that we are wealthier than ever. If you plop a billionaire into a ghetto, the average income suddenly looks much better. The growing chasm between the haves and have nots.
5) The internet. It is more difficult to have secrets now. I wonder if the highly promiscuous Clinton could have survived the age of the internet. Trump may also feel the wrath in the future. The odds of that are good. The loss of privacy and growth of information due to the internet
6) The divide between "liberals" and "conservatives" is much worse than it has been in our lifetimes. It is simply vile. The growing and horrific political divide. As witnessed by many responses.
Of course no American leader will likely achieve long term popularity over approx. two thirds of the populace. In retrospect, that should have been mentioned. Though I'd like to believe we all know what is meant by a "popular leader".
Seems like the debate took a turn for the worse recently. Perhaps I am just in a foul mood after my rear axle housing split in half?
I believe that all of the highlighted six mega trends are almost indescribable in consequence. "Close the thread" because the word "Trumpster" was used? Oh my.
This thread has the potential to become one of the greatest debates of them all. Let us hope that some logical and enlightened "moderates" will alight in the near future.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
