Best leader your country never had

[kochman]

Yeah, but it's still only during the election period. There's nothing wrong with referendums, which is all that is, and those are done regularly in European nations too.

 

[Camikaze]

Certainly there's nothing wrong with referendums as a method of resolving certain issues of constitutional significance, but the supposed ridiculousness stems from the role those referendums play in policy-making.

 

[kochman]

Why is that ridiculous? As if seated politicians are the only ones smart enough to create law???

 

[Farm Boy]

The problem with that theory is that many, if not most, of the states just won't do the right thing in the first place. Not without the feds pushing them. Now this was more true when federal elections were more competitive than they are today. But it's the states which are at fault that the federal elections are not more competitive.

And so problems like civil rights, some states will go there without the feds, but many won't. Is it actually 'more right' to leave an American in that situation than to have the feds deal with it?

You have to understand that there is virtually nothing that the US federal government does which it only does in response to the complete and utter failure of states to deal with those issues. If the states had dealt with those issues, the feds would not be involved at all.

And then there are issues where the states are fundamentally unable to get the job done. Like environmental regulation and welfare. Without the feds leading, these things simply do not happen. Or they happen in only a piecemeal and utterly sucky fashion.

Oh I agree in some ways, the Title VII is about my favorite piece of legislation. So much to live up to. Redistricting reforms and regulations are sorely needed. Like really sorely. But I really think the Fed is enjoying its relative good will in relation to state governments pretty much because of its historically smaller role. The role of the umpire keeping things legit instead of doing them itself. The more it gets hands on, the more its going to get dirty and the less it's going to be better than the things it would better be spent keeping honest. The more we learn about what it's doing the more we'll realize it also sucks really bad. It's always just been farther away.

 

[Hygro]

Actually, it brings CA closer to being an actual democracy. Unless you're arguing that actual democracy is bad, which wouldn't be an absurd thing to argue.

To call it ridiculous/horrific is an exaggeration.

That's like, your opinion man.

Nope pure fact.

Certainly there's nothing wrong with referendums as a method of resolving certain issues of constitutional significance, but the supposed ridiculousness stems from the role those referendums play in policy-making.

It is supposedly ridiculous, yet in practice it has worked quite well.

Why is that ridiculous? As if seated politicians are the only ones smart enough to create law???

 

[bhavv]

Sarah Palin! (for the USA).

Only because the world has been denied so much epic laughter that could have been had if she was in charge.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sarah Palin! (for the USA).

Only because the world has been denied so much epic laughter that could have been had if she was in charge.

I find it easy enough to laugh at her as is, so I see no need to put her in charge of anything.

 

[bhsup]

I find it easy enough to laugh at her as is, so I see no need to put her in charge of anything.

This is wisdom.

 

[Quintillus]

Farm Boy, I'm confused where you're getting the fed enjoying relative good will versus state governments from. Isn't Congress's approval 9% or something miniscule like that? Maybe it's slightly up from last year, but I can't imagine it's that great. Even here in Ohio, where our governor Kasich is far from popular, my feeling is there's a lot more ill-will towards the federal government and its ineptness than the state government. Bad governor or not, at least the state legislature isn't overcome by partisan gridlock.

downtown

Good answer. But you never know - it might happen yet. IIRC downtown is not yet of old enough to run for President. Not that that stopped Victoria Woodhull, although she was only one year too young.

I suspect RFK is the answer for this question for the U.S. I haven't read as much about him as I'd like, but from what I have lately I think he may have been a very good leader had he survived (and was a pretty good leader as Attorney General under JFK and LBJ). Like I say, I haven't read enough to say definitely, but it seems like a lost opportunity, especially since Humphrey became the nominee and Nixon became president... possibly the worst president of the 20th century.

Al Gore is someone who I'm sympathetic since IMO the electoral college is a stupid system, and he should've became president in 2001. And while I don't doubt he would've been a better president than Bush the Younger, I'm also not convinced he would've been a fantastic president. Good, quite likely, and I doubt we would've had many of the problems we do today (Iraq war and aftermath, skyrocketing deficits in mid-2000s, the same degree of a national-security complex... Cheney being as much at fault for that as Bush). But worthy of being on currency or Mount Rushmore? Probably not.

He did invent the Internet, and that certainly counts for something. [/civ4 joke]

Also for the electoral college reason, I'm sympathetic to Samuel J. Tilden, but I really don't know if he would've been any better of a president than Rutherford B. Hayes. The anti-corruption platform is a good start, but not really enough to go on in deciding if he was a great leader.

Debs is an interesting mention, but again, I don't know enough about him to say with any certainty.

 

[Farm Boy]

Amongst the poster(s) I've been engaging with(ones whom I value rather a lot), the Fed does enjoy that relative good will. I'm trying to present as a hypothetical a world in which Goldwater's ideology was not crushed by the ruthless effectiveness of the humongous butthole that was LBJ. Even in that hypothetical I would probably view the Fed as enjoying a necessary evil sort of status. Like in cases such as Albuquerque, where the police have relatively obviously become a bunch of murderous jackasses because they like to kill. Almost makes me wish we could execute some of them. Almost.

In a world where LBJ's effectiveness has crushed Goldwater's stance into villainy though one of the most effective smear campaigns in history, one so effective it convinced people "vote for Goldwater and he'll kill your children," one so effective it birthed the abomination that is the modern political attack ad, of course that attitude towards the Federal government reigns supreme. For all the good LBJ did, he did a hell of a lot of lasting harm too. Ironic given his success against Goldwater the capital would ring with chants of "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" That's why I put him almost on par with Truman for the presidents deserving of the most raw hatred. Despite my love of some things he got passed, he deserves every iota of it.

 

[Hygro]

I doubt we would've had many of the problems we do today ... skyrocketing deficits in mid-2000s,.

In of itself, why do you think that was a bad thing?

 

[Camikaze]

Why is that ridiculous? As if seated politicians are the only ones smart enough to create law???

Obviously that's not the reason. Ordinarily, the government is elected by the people, and that government makes policy. Citizens can change the government if they dislike policy, and there are other accountability mechanisms in place too in order to ensure the government is not out of control (I'm more familiar with the Westminster tradition, but the US is certainly famous for its committees). So as a starting point, it's not like there aren't any accountability mechanisms in place. To then implement an ad hoc dual-track system of policy-making that can easily throw up completely populist and contradictory results, is both an obviously inefficient way of formulating policy, and barely serves any useful redeeming purpose. As far as administrative law measures go, it doesn't make much sense. It's true that citizens are given more direct control over policy, but from a non-American perspective, this is not seen as a positive end in itself. Most other democratic traditions have more of a pragmatic focus. This is also what I'm referring to in mentioning America's well-known discretion-phobia. For some reason, probably heavily historically based, it's thought that there needs to be democratic checks at every stage of decision-making. So you end up with things which, from any non-American perspective, looks like sheer lunacy, such as elected judges.

 

[kochman]

Obviously that's not the reason. Ordinarily, the government is elected by the people, and that government makes policy. Citizens can change the government if they dislike policy, and there are other accountability mechanisms in place too in order to ensure the government is not out of control (I'm more familiar with the Westminster tradition, but the US is certainly famous for its committees). So as a starting point, it's not like there aren't any accountability mechanisms in place.

Accountability =/= Creative Legislating. Still not seeing why the government, which you've described in the correct representative manner, should hold the monopoly on voting.
Rousseau would say that the only time, in your preferred system, you are free is when you vote for who will represent you. After that, you're back in "shackles" to his will, etc.
Yes, there are mechanisms for recall, etc, but they are all quite difficult to actually pull off... generally you just have to wait for the next time they run for election (IF they run).

To then implement an ad hoc dual-track system of policy-making that can easily throw up completely populist and contradictory results, is both an obviously inefficient way of formulating policy, and barely serves any useful redeeming purpose.

Inefficient? By offering the people more use of their voice?
That's going to be a tough argument to make.
"completely populist and contradictory results"... definitely a bit too much caffeine in that sentence.
There remains the system of checks and balances, judicial review, etc.

As far as administrative law measures go, it doesn't make much sense. It's true that citizens are given more direct control over policy, but from a non-American perspective, this is not seen as a positive end in itself.

You really should be careful when using phrases like "from a non-American perspective". Perhaps "my non-American" would be better. The way you phrase it makes it sound as though you've been elected spokesman for the rest of the world.
The EU countries regularly use referendums, including the UK.

Most other democratic traditions have more of a pragmatic focus.

First of all, there is nothing impractical about our approach.
Second of all, as far as I know, most democracies (of the west anyhow) due use referendum, which is basically the same thing.

This is also what I'm referring to in mentioning America's well-known discretion-phobia. For some reason, probably heavily historically based, it's thought that there needs to be democratic checks at every stage of decision-making.

Incorrect, most amendment votes happen during the scheduled election cycle. Not that there would be a problem with one outside of the schedule, in my opinion.
It's saying, we don't need a bunch of elitist politicians turning this issue into a battleground, dragging it out forever to get more votes based on it, etc.

So you end up with things which, from any non-American perspective, looks like sheer lunacy, such as elected judges.

Wow, ok, you do speak for any non-American. That's amazingly presumptious, and clearly incorrect.
"Sheer lunacy" to elect a judge? Ummmm, no, sheer lunacy is doing things like speaking for "any non-American" from your own opinion. I have no doubt that others share your opinion, but jeebus.

 

[Arwon]

Wow, ok, you do speak for any non-American. That's amazingly presumptious, and clearly incorrect.
"Sheer lunacy" to elect a judge? Ummmm, no, sheer lunacy is doing things like speaking for "any non-American" from your own opinion. I have no doubt that others share your opinion, but jeebus.

I'm unaware of any other country which elects judges and it's not really a stretch to say it looks like lunacy from the outside. From a continental European or Westminster perspective it's very contrary to how judicial systems are supposed to work.

For example, here's the Economist's Democracy In America blog calling it insane.

 

[bhsup]

Given we don't have a continental European or Westminster system, who gives a fudge how they work? That's totally irrelevant to us. We're not continental Europe or Westminster, we're America. How do you do, pleased to meet you.

 

[Arwon]

Yes. And you let judges run electoral campaigns.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I can't think of a hotly contested judge's seat I've ever heard of. It's often just one candidate for the seat, whom the voters then just okay. The function of electing judges is primarily one of being able to remove bad judges, but it does also work towards being judged by one's peers, which is already an enshrined part of the legal system. You may find judge election campaigns horrid, but I find appointed and unaccountable judges (like the USSC justices!) to be infinitely more offensive.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't intend to engage in a quote war based on a fairly throwaway remark designed to relay an outside viewpoint, but just to clarify some misunderstandings in your post - firstly, 'a non-American perspective' is referring to a singular perspective, just as 'my non-American perspective' would be. Though I didn't say 'my' because this is not my original argument, but one I'm relaying (perhaps fairly ineffectively) from an admin law context (where it's a broader non-American perspective). 'Any non-American perspective' is not meant to discount the possibility that individuals exist outside America who think elected judges are a good thing, but rather is indicating that the prevailing view in all jurisdictions I'm aware of outside America, is the practice of electing judges is positively insane. I'll grant that 'any' is probably overselling it, when there may be some jurisdictions I'm unaware of that share America's insanity in this regard, and it may not be insane in non-Western-developed-country contexts, but you get the gist that elected judges are seen as a peculiarly American curiosity deriving largely from an overfetishisation of democracy at all levels.

 

[kochman]

I'm unaware of any other country which elects judges and it's not really a stretch to say it looks like lunacy from the outside. From a continental European or Westminster perspective it's very contrary to how judicial systems are supposed to work.

1) You're from the same country, aren't you? At least that same "Westminster Tradition" that we had to do away with here in the USA, same ideas?

2) We could give two craps about the Westminster perspective... unlike Australia, we fought for our right to create our own system, and though it has recently been quite corrupted, it's still far superior to any system that recognizes aristocracy and kings/queens... it isn't 1433 anymore.

3) Speaking for the entire democratic system, other than the US, is sheer lunacy.

4) You can think electing judges is lunacy, but that doesn't mean it is. That means it is your opinion. It's really not that big of a deal. I'd rather have that than judges appointed by the local duke.

5) We only elect certain (local) judges, MOST are appointed, including all Federal judges.

6) There are certainly criticisms of electing judges in the US

7) Other nations elect judges, if we include judges "elected" by the legislative body the number SKYROCKETS, to nearly half the democracies. Bolivia is the only country that has popular elections for national judges.

8) Electing judges wasn't even the issue, the issue was direct voting on amendments.

I can't think of a hotly contested judge's seat I've ever heard of. It's often just one candidate for the seat, whom the voters then just okay. The function of electing judges is primarily one of being able to remove bad judges, but it does also work towards being judged by one's peers, which is already an enshrined part of the legal system. You may find judge election campaigns horrid, but I find appointed and unaccountable judges (like the USSC justices!) to be infinitely more offensive.

That's because it's only for local judges, and no one really cares.
Yes, you also make a valid point about "appointed and unaccountable" judges... yet, this American idea is "insane", per two Australians, a nation that still recognizes a queen.

I don't intend to engage in a quote war

Probably a good idea since the wording you used was highly inaccurate and based in your opinion.

'Any non-American perspective' is not meant to discount the possibility that individuals exist outside America who think elected judges are a good thing

But that's precisely what the word "any" does.

but rather is indicating that the prevailing view in all jurisdictions I'm aware of outside America

I think there is a fair amount of shadowy areas in your understanding.
Yes, at the local level, we directly elect judges in some states. That's like electing a magistrate.

I don't think that your claim of "prevailing view in all jurisdictions" is correct either, as I've shown that somewhere near half of the democracies due elect their judges if you intend to include a legislative body vote as an election.

is the practice of electing judges is positively insane.

In your opinion, which may not be that educated on the topic.

The gist I get is that, for whatever reason, two people on this forum take huge offense at locally elected local judges.
That's somewhat weird, but whatever.
It's not lunacy, in either direction... so let's calm down with the "sheer lunacy" and "positively insane" talk, shall we?

 

[bhsup]

Yes. And you let judges run electoral campaigns.

So? What do you care? It's a completely internal matter that cannot in any way affect foreigners outside of our borders. What do you care how we do it?

(and please, please, be decent and don't bring up some other situation like someone being caned in SE Asia as an example of a "totally internal matter" that really isn't comparable)