Popularity of Presidents
Submitted by fyl on Tue, 2012/05/22 - 14:51.
I was just watching Julian Assange's interview of Rafael Correa on The World Tomorrow. Besides being an interesting interview, it got me thinking about Presidential popularity. My conclusion is that how people feel about Presidents in Latin America is very different than the way it works in the US. Or, at least that is my perception.
If we look at Chávez, Chinchilla, Correa, Fernandez, Morales and others, there seems to be a significant percentage of the population that really supports them. That is, people that belive they are the best choice for the country. That doesn't mean everyone, of course, but lots.
In the case of the US, for as long as I can remember, it seems like that is not the case. Once the primaries are over, it seems that while a few people are still a real fan of a candidate, most people seem to be in the lesser of two evils camp.
Assuming my perception is not wacko, why is this the case? I can think of a lot of possibilities. Correa actually offers some ideas which support at least one of the possibilities I have thought of. But, it's time for your input.
Lesser of 2 Evils
This is the case in the United States because the people here are sheeple. The media tells them who they have as an option to vote for and the idiots always choose one of the two. Both characters are bad and are always funded by the same special interest money. So really it doesn't matter who they vote for they aren't going to be represented.. So it often comes back to the short term motive of who they most assimilate themselves too.. People are always looking to be led or for the easy way out.. The media does a good job at leading them to one of the 2 evil candidates. Maybe if people turned off their TV's and learned once again how to be intelligent and think for themselves this would cease to be the case. Unfortunately this probably won't happen as many people who went belly up in this ongoing recession would rather have their TV then their house ;). Long live Obummer and Dumney. 2 of the same and 1 for all Ron Paul 2012!
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to the liberties of men than standing armies. -Jefferson
Winner take all issue
I think that is a big part of the problem. If Congress (at least the House of Representatives) was elected proportionately it might set the stage for Presidents that could represent majority interest rather than party interest.
The choice
between the Manchurian Candidate and Elmer Fudd doesn`t excite me much either. When we need an Andy Jackson or a Teddy Roosevelt we seem to be coming up with lesser men to say the least.
But if you think the sheeple are bad in the States, wait till you get here!
"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." Ayn Rand
"...and the idiots always choose one of the two".
Kinda hard to do otherwise in a two party system, No?
No constitutional requirement
for a two party system. The people or the sheeple can form as many parties as they want.
"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." Ayn Rand
But the reality is that it is a two party system
Ross Perot couldn't crack the closed shop
1992 19,743,821 votes (18.9%) and 0 electoral votes
1996 8,085,402 votes (8.4%) and 0 electoral votes
Thing is it's hard for amateurs to compete with professionals
I saw at least one of the Ross Perot debates with the pro candidates and that was brutally obvious.
Third parties need to start at the local levels and work on moving beyond that (Bernie Saunders changed his designation from Socialist to Independent when he was elected to Congress).
I think it's actually not particularly a bad thing to vote against rather than for. It's less sheep-like than following some charismatic leader.
Rebecca Brown
Amateurs V. Professionals Or No Money V. Big Money?
U.S. presidential, congressional and gubernatorial candidates are selected by the wealthy campaign donors, then the candidate with the wealthiest campaign donors, who can buy the most skilled and artful campaign professionals, wins.
Thereupon, the big corporations hire lawyers to write the legislation that they want their bought and paid for officials to pass. If those officials want to keep their seats by keeping their campaign donors happy, they duly introduce and vote for the pro-corporate legislation. Thus. for example, we have more and more deregulation of corporate behavior and more and more perfectly "legal" corruption abounds.
Thus we get the 1999 abolition of FDR's Glass Steagall Act, which prevented depository banks from using their depositors' money to fund speculative security investments. Its abolition paved the way for the massive frauds in the formation and sale of derivatives based on home mortgages which crashed the economy in 2007-2008. The big banks wrote the legislation which allowed them to fleece both home owners and investors, their puppets passed it. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and homes as a result, meanwhile the banks' CEO's paid themselves millions of dollars in bonuses for their legal coup.
As long as the rich are allowed to select and fund the candidates, a process immeasurably increased by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in "Citizens United", the average voter can not freely choose his/her candidate, and thus has no representatives in the putatively "democratic" system. It has become a big money oligarchy, where elected officials are owned by the wealthy corporations and individuals who bought them their seats.
Now, Mr. or Mrs. Joe Average, how are you going to get those bought and paid for elected officials to vote themselves out of office by voting for an end to private campaign financing in favor of public election financing? Good luck. The great majority of Americans are completely locked out of being able to control who runs their government.
Time to abolish the economic system that creates the great disparities in wealth that has made the theft of democracy possible, and to establish an economic system which benefits the majority of people in the human community, with a political system that gives control to human beings, not to big money. Fight big money by establishing community cooperatives. Take back control, block by block.
The state of Vermont has a tradition of strong town hall democratic decision-making which produced a great independent, socialist Senator, Bernie Sanders, and which is bringing the human right of adequate health care to all its citizens through citizen-based democracy. We need to create more Vermonts in order to create a truly human economic-political system!
Funny how none of this bothered some people
When they were doing well, ignorant or ambivalent.
IMO nothing has changed over the years or the Presidents...except for realization, concern and perception.
But multi-party (3 and up)
are not always that great .They create a lot of consfusion and sometimes end up with odd coalitions. In a functioning 2 party system, the leaders function in a `big tent` and have to come to some type of consensus within their party before they go to the voters. Nicaraguan Liberals would be much better off if they consolidated to one party and hashed out 1 party platform. (Yes, I know, Nic liberals need a lot more than just a united party).
3rd parties in the US were not supressed or legislated out of existence--they often lacked leadership and their platform was coopted by one of the other parties.
can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." Ayn Rand