I don’t disagree - the extremes are often political junkies who are committed and driven to enter the arena to battle other ideologues. But there used to be a great tradition of people wanting to get into politics to be problem solvers, and while they were comfortable battling it out over the best way to do that, they didnt get elected with the sole purpose to engage in duels to the death over competing philosophies.
We’ve lost that. And we’re worse off for it.
On paper, his list of preferred policies* seem to land on a kind of centrism, but unlike other moderates, he has the ability to alienate and not get along with pretty much everyone, moderates included. Most moderates tend to have the knack for having allies and really, friends, across and throughout the aisle. Trump seems incapable of that.
*But these seem to be changing in real time, in any event. The former “pro-worker” Trump has now reversed himself on China-as-currency-manipulator, the Ex-Im Bank, and has gone quiet on aggressive trade reform.
I think this is key - it can’t start with taking sides on a bunch of policy positions that reflect predictable red/blue divisions. It has to start with good government reform - how we do things, not what we do.
So he’s a centrist asshole who makes everybody mad. I think that’s about the most succinct way to put it.
What I suspect is that the whole Twitter and public personality thing is a shtick.
Once he’s behind closed doors with people actually cutting deals everyone comes away happy. Hell even the NYT editorial board was yucking it up and having fun with Trump in person. Same thing with the Chinese president and the head of NATO. Now he excoriated those two publicly, but after one in person meeting they are cool.
So that leaves two possibilities.
Is it bad if I prefer option 2?
If we removed the “issue=morality” mind set, that would be a great start. There are certain moral issues I know I cannot sway on, but turning considered positions that people hold opposite from ourselves into something that has a bearing on their a. Sanity or b. their moral character is the wellspring of this poison.
I don’t know that it can be turned off by a cultural shift, so the solution would be to decentralise power to make it less relevant. Chances of that are slim.
Lesser of 2 evils, my friend. What is lost in experience is gained in a reduction in the propensity for corruption (just my $0.02.)
2 terms for national/ federal, infinite for state. Mind you, in the UK we have ossified dinosaurs and a more moderate government. (We DO however, make local control and winning the majority of the local elections much more important, so make of that what you will)
Why infinite for state?
You get a large state like Texas with 1/2 the UK’s population and an economy the size of Canada, and just let someone rule it for 40 years?
More local influence in the outcome. No major reason other than that. For most states, it isn’t an issue. But perhaps a state by state choice would be best.
All fair points. You’re probably right about the lesser of two evils. What did you think about NickViar’s retort to term limits? I’m curious.
Local governance needs to be established as being more important, I agree.
California has term limits for both Assembly and State Senate of 6 years (3 terms).
Do you really want to be just like us?
Lawmakers in a rush to make their mark, marking their territory like a cat pissing on everything, long before they gain any saavy or experience is partly responsible, I believe, for a lot of our nanny state over-legislation.
What Nick said was interesting, and deserves some very serious consideration. I would query, however, whether the disaster he fears has not already materialised. The problem HAS metastasised, and the ability for the worst to be limited in their plunder seems to be a better outcome than the untested notion that the term limits would increase their propensity for self-service.
If his fears did materialise, then I would revise my opinions. But they hypothetical ignores the scale of the current problem.
EDIT: Not that I think Nick is ignoring the issue at all. Lest I be misunderstood.
You’re thinking along the lines I am thinking myself. It was a thoughtful answer but ultimately I believe the problem is already out of hand.
Also, in a pipedream fantasy world, I’d like to take away the ability of Congress to give itself raises. Tack the thing to inflation (but not yearly, maybe termwise or less often), and make it untouchable.
I like this post so much, Legalsteel. My mind has been circling around it for the past few days. I find it ridiculous that we have people who are voting on maybe one or two HOT social issues, instead of thinking about looming national problems like the debt or the social security.
For example, in the past few years we saw many states pass LGBT anti-discrimination statutes. We now have gay marriage. Things have never been better in terms of the status of LGBT persons in the US, but we’ve kept the partisan divide going over TG bathrooms which should be a nonissue, IMO. It’s as if the TG restroom is some kind of last frontier for human rights, and for the far right conservative wing it’s a “you’ve pushed, and pushed, and pushed, and we’re not gonna take it anymore.” I studied the issue in fair detail last year and righty me came to an agreement with our most progressive poster over it. That tells me that reasonable people can just study it, make policy, and move on. Instead we’re REALLY DIVIDED over this kind of nonsense. It’s a distraction from the real work of dealing with serious governance.
Honestly, I think the two big parties would rather stir this up then really deal with something like the debt.
I don’t think it should even be a blip on the political radar.
Honestly, I think people just like to fight and need a reason. Politicians are trying to appease their base, but all that their base wants to do is scream and swing signs at each other.
The media + black & white thinking + general ignorance are mostly to blame IMO & those things are never going to change much unless we either start heavily regulating how the media reports on stuff how or we somehow engineer people to be more balanced, rational thinkers.
Critical thinking skills! You don’t get them when you teach to the test. The solution is less stupid people clearly.
How do you know if a Democrat has been in your backyard? Your garbage cans are empty and your dog is pregnant.