politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I agree and disagree. The ability to successfully lead a government as chaotic (i.e. democratic) and large as the republic of states known as the US is very rare. It requires not only a strong physical and mental constitution, but also a wide set of skills and intuitive abilities that usually only make themselves apparent during trials by fire. Compared to the sometimes explosively violent centralizations of power that occur when the rare charismatic tyrants fight their way into power (e.g. Napoleon, Hitler), democracies grow in fits and starts as they rely upon a panjandrum of popularity contests to find talented leaders. In contrast to dynasties that fiercely burn hot with their founder's fervor then languish in subsequent generations, democracies have the potential for sustained competence as long as incumbent leaders continue to hold popularity contests with the goal of finding new leaders better than themselves from as wide a candidate pool as possible.
When the contests fail to find the rare talented leader, the process does resemble a farcical out-of-touch revolving door of mediocre middle managers like you suggest: because talented leaders are rare. And even when a talented individual does prove thenselves, they cannot cling to power lest they destroy the talent search apparatus that brought them to power in the first place and which will eventually replace them with an even more talented individual in the future. To destroy that apparatus reverts the civilization back into purity-obsessed gatekeeping fascism and boring dynastic tyranny.
So, if this decade's popularity contest is restricted to late-night comedian talk-show hosts, I say that's better than a Trump dynasty. But, I hope winners of those contests steer government to promote talent searches with larger candidate pools than they came from. That could take the form of government propaganda rewarding people to run for local elections. Without leaders consciously promoting wider popularity contests, the people of a democracy default to choosing the photogenic faces and entertaining voices they see and hear on their screens: actors like Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger or game show hosts like Donald Trump.
I don't disagree, but I will push back on a couple points.
First, I would assert that that we're a few years past the end of the late night personality decade. Colbert jumping to CBS was what made it mainstream, which is the point of the peak, about 10 years ago. Kimmel and Fallon don't measure up at all. The era of monolithinc cultural icons is fading since the internet has fractured our media consumption patterns. Stewart and Colbert had a great dynamic while both were on comedy central, and if you'll recall, Colbert actually try to run for President in 2008. It was a joke, but I think only a half-hearted one and he would have probably gone on a hell of a campaign. He didn't want to pay $35K to get on the Republican primary ticket in SC, but the DNC actually rejected his application to be on the primary in 1 state.
As for leaders who are charismatic and capable, ultimately, it's a shit job to be president and no one wants it unless they're a little crazy or see personal benefit. Obama, for his few failings, was an exception across the board, both for being good enough that the DNC let him skip the fealty line, but also being competent enough to not make people regret voting for him, and I think genuinely a public servant at heart. Typically, the "Left" universe lets their nepo babies play around in Hollywood simply because money is the arbiter of success, and anyone can subsidize their kid for 3 years to live in LA and make a couple lousy documentaries, or as lobbyists and lawyers in Maryland. Once in one of those spheres, that's your specialty and contact list.
No one is coming to save us from the DNC - is what I wrote meaning to say "No one from the DNC is coming to save us." What a slip, right? The DNC would rather let it all burn down around them to "show leadership" be handing out brooms and telling people it's time to clean up the mess, and wasn't it nice they brought brooms, so vote for them.