**** Elections thread *****

[a500lbgorilla]

What fascinates me about American politics is the fact that the public has such a broad view of what makes a candidate qualified for office. Reagan, Schwartzenegger, Ventura, and now Trump all come to mind as people who started their political careers by running for a significant office (governor or president) with little or no experience in politics/government at all. This does not happen in other English-speaking countries or the West in general afaik.

What I think this illustrates is that the US has mastered the art of marketing in elections. The amount of money spent on funding elections is astronomical compared to anywhere else. Discussions of policy are lacking or at most secondary to the real question of whose brand is a better seller. It may as well be an election pitting MacDonald's versus Coca-Cola.

I think it's more along the lines of thinking that the kind of common sense that can manage your work and family and community should scale up to the highest office.

It shouldn't take some great calculus to stand as the country's executive.

[Savy]

I think it's more along the lines of thinking that the kind of common sense that can manage your work and family and community should scale up to the highest office.

It shouldn't take some great calculus to stand as the country's executive.

Doesn't America have a pretty strong history of anti-academia with regards to people in office? I imagine a lot of countries also do, being seen as the smartest guy in the room isn't a positive trait for this.

[Poopadoop]

Doesn't America have a pretty strong history of anti-academia with regards to people in office?

That's kind of what I was getting at, but even more, experience in office seems less relevant in the US than in other places.

[JKDS]

That's kind of what I was getting at, but even more, experience in office seems less relevant in the US than in other places.

Why do you say that? Many presidents have been previously vice president, secretary of state, or governor. Without being president, these are each pretty close.

Our media is batshit crazy, and downplays the experience thing while also not up selling it enough. But I think most people agree that we want an experienced leader.

[Poopadoop]

Why do you say that? Many presidents have been previously vice president, secretary of state, or governor. Without being president, these are each pretty close.

Our media is batshit crazy, and downplays the experience thing while also not up selling it enough. But I think most people agree that we want an experienced leader.

None of the examples I cited had experience, and likely would not have been elected in the UK at least. That's what I'm getting at. We don't have any wrestler or actor MPs, for example. All of Reagan, Ventura and Schwartzenegger were elected governor with no experience in public office at all.

No-one's yet made a good argument for why any of these guys were qualified apart from being easily recognizable and having charisma (i.e., being marketable).

[wufwugy]

No-one's yet made a good argument for why any of these guys were qualified apart from being easily recognizable and having charisma (i.e., being marketable).

Your observation on this topic is not wrong. One way of looking at this is that the difference between Britain and America comes down to our religions. One of the marked traits of American Christian innovation was anti-credentialism (formally known as anti-intellectualism, but that's a confusing term). Basically, our Christianity became one where anybody could hold a leadership role; whereas in European Christianity, leaders had to be properly credentialed.

I'd probably say when the values of the Protestant Reformation hit the geography of America, it incentivized anti-credentialism.

[JKDS]

Doesn't America have a pretty strong history of anti-academia with regards to people in office? I imagine a lot of countries also do, being seen as the smartest guy in the room isn't a positive trait for this.

Maybe. 11 out of the last 13 presidents have had serious academic credentials. Like Yale, and Harvard Law.

Loads of people run as the "common man", but it's rarely true. There's nothing common about running for president or senate.

[Savy]

Maybe. 11 out of the last 13 presidents have had serious academic credentials. Like Yale, and Harvard Law.

Loads of people run as the "common man", but it's rarely true. There's nothing common about running for president or senate.

Yeah I'm not meaning they're picking people without a high school education but that being at the top end of the scale tends to be a bad thing. There's an idea that you want the smartest people running the show but in practise that's shown not to be true. How many (phd) doctors have been president? It's surprisingly low IIRC.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yeah I'm not meaning they're picking people without a high school education but that being at the top end of the scale tends to be a bad thing. There's an idea that you want the smartest people running the show but in practise that's shown not to be true. How many (phd) doctors have been president? It's surprisingly low IIRC.

None of them campaign well.

[Savy]

None of them campaign well.

I don't know the history well enough to comment but that seems slightly dismissive.

----edit----
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_education

I'm sure that list is probably slightly swayed by the fact education over time has become more of a thing but lots of not graduating & what not amongst relatively recent presidents.

/edit

None of the examples I cited had experience, and likely would not have been elected in the UK at least. That's what I'm getting at. We don't have any wrestler or actor MPs, for example. All of Reagan, Ventura and Schwartzenegger were elected governor with no experience in public office at all.

We have tonnes of MPs with no prior experience who also aren't famous. Look at the huge rise of the SNP & some of the people they ran and won with.

I'm pretty sure we've had actors as MPs too.

edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenda...litical_career

Also the house of lords is full people who are famous.

[Poopadoop]

Ok my bad.

House of Lords are appointed, though I suppose that's even worse.

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't know the history well enough to comment but that seems slightly dismissive.

----edit----
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_education

I'm sure that list is probably slightly swayed by the fact education over time has become more of a thing but lots of not graduating & what not amongst relatively recent presidents.

/edit

Dismissive a bit, but, you do need to campaign well to win an election. And education doesn't make a candidate, it's just a line on their resume.

[Poopadoop]

I think it's more along the lines of thinking that the kind of common sense that can manage your work and family and community should scale up to the highest office.

It shouldn't take some great calculus to stand as the country's executive.

But it should take someone with some experience in office, no?

And what is it about any of these people that suggests they are good at managing all of their work, family and community? Trump's been married multiple times, for example, and has been described as the 'least charitable billionaire in the world' (suggesting he's less than keenly interested in the 'community'. Surely a highly educated, successful person with a stable marriage and some experience in government would make a better candidate than any of the ones i mentioned if that were the only criteria used to judge them.

[Poopadoop]

I can tell you this: If Rupert Murdoch (or whoever the UK equivalent of Trump is) should run for office he would not get a significant amount of support for the reasons I mentioned.

[a500lbgorilla]

I can tell you this: If Rupert Murdoch (or whoever the UK equivalent of Trump is) should run for office he would not get a significant amount of support for the reasons I mentioned.

What about the Philippine version of Trump? Guy literally campaigns on "I will murder all of the problems", is elected, and then does just that.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...lers/86936916/

[Poopadoop]

What about the Philippine version of Trump? Guy literally campaigns on "I will murder all of the problems", is elected, and then does just that.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...lers/86936916/

Well I assume you would want to think your country is a bit more civilized than the Phillippines. I'm sure there's lot of dodgy guys elected in S. America and Africa too. But I was comparing the US to the rest of the West.

[a500lbgorilla]

Well I assume you would want to think your country is a bit more civilized than the Phillippines.

I very much do not.

We're all people, after all.

But I was comparing the US to the rest of the West.

Didn't the UK make Boris their top diplomat?

[Poopadoop]

You don't think your political system is any more advanced than that of the Phillippines? Interesting.

Didn't the UK make Boris their top diplomat?

Your point presumably being that he's an unkempt buffoon, and so comparable to Trump?

Johnson was an MP for 8 years before being Mayor of London for 8 years. Before that he went to Oxford. He worked in the media for several years as a political columnist before becoming MP.

[Savy]

Didn't the UK make Boris their top diplomat?

I'm not really a fan of Boris but he's been in politics for a really long time & is actually a decent face for British politics in foreign markets. Of the people who could have got that job (poor bunch admittedly) he's by far and away the best pick.

[a500lbgorilla]

But it should take someone with some experience in office, no?

And what is it about any of these people that suggests they are good at managing all of their work, family and community? Trump's been married multiple times, for example, and has been described as the 'least charitable billionaire in the world' (suggesting he's less than keenly interested in the 'community'. Surely a highly educated, successful person with a stable marriage and some experience in government would make a better candidate than any of the ones i mentioned if that were the only criteria used to judge them.

Obama didn't have much experience and I think he did well enough.

I'm very anti-Trump, so I can't really square up a defense for the man. I will, however, defend those that want to vote for him in earnest.

[Poopadoop]

Obama didn't have much experience and I think he did well enough.

According to Wiki, his former jobs were community organizer (whatever that is), lawyer, and lecturer. So yeah he wasn't experienced in office but at least he presumably had some understanding of how laws were made. Isn't that one of the president's main jobs.

I'm very anti-Trump, so I can't really square up a defense for the man. I will, however, defend those that want to vote for him in earnest.

So will I. There's nothing wrong with someone having their own opinions and I wasn't arguing they should be denied the right to vote for Trump or anyone else.