Is the United States ready for a President who speaks to the populace like adults?

[jackson33]

Clay; Law (legislation) as perceived, was the underlying principle of equalizing the public to the governing. That is neither should be above the laws, whether in making or obeying. To insure laws were equitable to both, the outline to establish law was given a process, a viable consensus, which the stronger and weaker branches could/should have the power to overturn, but with the knowledge of the peoples opinion. A long way of saying, the founders were convinced, the checks would work, but again, so long as society and government could live with in the laws. (I might add many said 'laws of man').

Freddy; The founders were NOT concerned with 'education'. Their concern was entirely based on 'National Interest'. Though our history, many actual patriots were uneducated in the formal methods but believing in their country and with a desire to see their descendants live the life they had or better, died in the process to what is today. Then add 'educated in what'...Where in any country, not only the US, education has become in many ways indoctrination of a philosophy, some say in liberalism today in the US.
As said before, the founders were convinced IMO, that that National Interest, their livelihood or property alone should be required, to determine the future of the Nation they were establishing. As a society, each generation has confirmed those ideas, since its conception.

Since we are not going back to the times of the founders and its not practical to believe we could, only the education of the youth to what all it has taken from all the people involved and the direct link to what most feel is good, will allow the next generation to reconfirm what the last already have...

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Down with the Electoral College!

Do you also believe the World Series should be decided with one game? That is the equivalent of what you advocate. If the population of California gets big enough should they be able to elect the President for the rest of us with their enormous vote?

[CraigD]

If the “strict father/nurturant parent” model described by cognitive linguist George Lackoff in his 1996 book “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think” is correct, and the correlation between political party affiliation and liberal/conservative worldviews is as strong as is generally assumed, then about half of US voters – liberals - prefer their leaders speak to them as a fellow adult, while the other half – conservatives – prefer that they do not. According to Lackoff’s model, conservatives prefer that their leaders not deal with them as peers, but make correct judgments and actions, which they follow without unduly questioning, while liberals prefer that their leaders confide in them and seek consensus prior to acting.

Though socio-psychological models such as Lackoff’s are difficult to quantify and test in a rigorous scientific manner, I’m impressed by how well this model addresses questions such as this thread’s.

Note that, while the model doesn’t imply that the liberal/conservative division among Americans has or will always be about 50/50, it does imply that change in this proportion occurs slowly, with most people’s political attitudes changing little during their lives, and tending to match those of their parents. It suggests that admonitions to the People to demand that their leaders speak to them like adults will have little effect, no matter how well argued or intended they are, most people being unlikely to profoundly change their worldview in this respect.

What, IMHO, Lackoff fails to explain adequately is the remarkable coincidence that Americans are so evenly divided between these two major worldviews, rather than one strongly dominating the other. I’ve no explanation for this, either, but suspect that a compelling explanation of it would be of even greater importance to social science than Lackoff’s model, which merely describes the two worldviews and relates it to various behaviors and beliefs.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by CraigD

...and the correlation between political party affiliation and liberal/conservative worldviews is as strong as is generally assumed, then about half of US voters – liberals - prefer their leaders speak to them as a fellow adult, while the other half – conservatives – prefer that they do not.

<...>

Note that, while the model doesn’t imply that the liberal/conservative division among Americans has or will always be about 50/50, it does imply that change in this proportion occurs slowly, with most people’s political attitudes changing little during their lives, and tending to match those of their parents.

<...>

What, IMHO, Lackoff fails to explain adequately is the remarkable coincidence that Americans are so evenly divided between these two major worldviews, rather than one strongly dominating the other.

First Craig, thank you for a response which is actually on the topic proposed in my OP. Not that I've disenjoyed the dialogue about our nations goverment, it's history, and the intent of it's founders, but one of the downsides of a single off-topic response is the need to address the falsehoods it contains... and then we tend to spin off on these non-thread-specific, though still interesting, tangents.

That said, you implied more than once in your post that the split between the conservative and liberal approach to politics is roughly even among the US populace, suggesting that it is a "remarkable coincidence" that we are all so "evenly divided."

Can you please cite a source for your comments relating to the relatively symetrical and "50/50" divisions of these ideological stances in modern day United States to which you referred?

I am extraordinarily curious to hear if studies bear out that suggestion, as I've sensed in my own personal and everyday experience these past several years a STRONG reaction (almost reflectance) away from the conservative political mindset, whether that be neo or paleo in description, since it has gone so far astray from it's original "fiscal-only" intent, and more toward a socially focussed approach... the addition of religious doctrine to our governance and the attempts to legislate very personal, subjective, and biased moralities to the masses.

Further, when one looks at the grassroots energy which has been inspired by candidates such as Barack Obama, I am quite interested to read more about the US ideological landscape, and would welcome data which supports your contention of an even split as posted above.

Thanks again for addressing the OP and not the OT posts, and sorry for the word diarrhea. My thought was orignally much more concise than what I have displayed here.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Do you also believe the World Series should be decided with one game? That is the equivalent of what you advocate. If the population of California gets big enough should they be able to elect the President for the rest of us with their enormous vote?

I should think so.

Imagine the same scenario from a Californian's perspective.

I should think that the percentage of the total determines the final outcome. In my (probably flawed) interpretation of the US setup, the electoral collage was a good idea at the time, but have completely outlived its usefulness to the point of being a completely and utterly undemocratic institution.

Al Gore won the 2001 election, after all. You Americans got done in.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

That said, you implied more than once in your post that the split between the conservative and liberal approach to politics is roughly even among the US populace, suggesting that it is a "remarkable coincidence" that we are all so "evenly divided."

Can you please cite a source for your comments relating to the relatively symetrical and "50/50" divisions of these ideological stances in modern day United States to which you referred?

The data from which I reach the tentative conclusion that about half of US voters are liberal, half conservative, are the past several decades’ Presidential election results:

Year  Liberal  Conservative
1960  49.7     49.5
1964  61.1     38.5
1968  42.7     43.4 (+13.5=56.9)
1972  37.5     60.7
1976  50.1     48.0
1880  41.0     50.7
1984  40.6     58.8
1988  45.6     53.4
1992  43.0     37.4 (18.9 ?)
1996  49.2     40.7
2000  48.4     47.9
2004  48.3     50.7

Note my large, and very tentative assumption that “the correlation between political party affiliation and liberal/conservative worldviews is as strong as is generally assumed”.

For many reasons, it’s difficult to get a simple, direct “are you liberal or conservative” statistic. Many people think of themselves as “neither liberal or conservative”, and debate the definitions of the terms. Many consider such information to be very private. Self-reported political attitude varies between regions and cultures: a person considered very liberal by the congregation of a southern West Virginia evangelical Christian church might be considered very conservative by that of metropolitan Maryland social club. Though I’m confident such exist, I tried, but failed after about 20 minutes of searching, to find a survey providing a simple estimate of the liberal:conservative ratio in the US and/or the world. If anyone knows of, or can find such surveys, please help.

To make sense of Lackoff’s “strong father/nurturant parent” model, and why I conclude that it addresses the question “Is the United States ready for a President who speaks to the populace like adults” (that is, as one adult to another), a pointed, necessarily overly simplistic summary of the model is useful.

• A conservative / strict father model-holding person was trained as a child to unquestioningly accept the instructions of a single authority, their “strict father”. He extends this model in both directions, requiring people over whom he has authority to follow orders unquestioningly, and requiring people under whose authority he falls to give orders without requiring questioning from him. He does not want a President who speaks to him as one adult to another, but rather one who speaks as a strict father to an obedient child.
• A liberal / nurturant parent model-holding person was trained as a child to discuss and reach mutual decisions with one or several or their “nurturant parents”. He extends this model to require people over whom he has authority to question and discuss issues with him before reaching decisions, and requiring people under whose authority he falls to do the same with him. He does want a President who speaks to him as one adult to another.

Though my academic and professional background is nearly devoid of specific social science instructions (psychology, history, and anthropology being my closest equivalents), IMHO application of models such as Lackoff’s are our best hope of having social science forum discussions that are actually scientific, rather than the exchange of political speech and personal opinion most common to this forum. Though little referenced, there actually are theories in the social science discipline somewhat analogous to those in the physical sciences, so it should be possible to apply the scientific method to questions about society.

PS: pseudo-CraigDerian?! I didn’t even know I had an adjective, and now I find not only that, but that there’s a pseudo-form of me-ness. My internet immortality is now achieved!

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by CraigD

PS: pseudo-CraigDerian?! I didn’t even know I had an adjective, and now I find not only that, but that there’s a pseudo-form of me-ness. My internet immortality is now achieved!

It just means that you and the wife are now one step closer to a fully uploaded consciousness.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I had no idea that presidential voting had split like that for so many years.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

I should think that the percentage of the total determines the final outcome. In my (probably flawed) interpretation of the US setup, the electoral collage was a good idea at the time, but have completely outlived its usefulness to the point of being a completely and utterly undemocratic institution.

Would you say the same of the European Union? The executive branch of that union gives each of the member states one member on the commission. Each of those gets one vote for the President of that commission regardless of the population of their State. Should representation in the executive branch be apportioned as it is in the Parliamentary branch?

The United States means literally that, a union of the States. Then, like now, the States are sovereign entities, each with its own citizens, government and laws. In the founding of the union the people were given their apportioned representation in the legislative branch as were the States. It was decided then that a fair voting power for the member states to use in choosing the President of the executive branch would be one that granted each member a voting power proportionate to its population and the Electoral College was born.

Each state gets a number of electors for the executive branch that is apportioned by the number of Representatives and Senators it has in Congress which is apportioned by the decennial census of its population. The Constitution directs that each shall choose its electors in a manner chosen by the State's Legislatures. No Constitutional right to vote in a federal election is provided by the Constitution at all because the President is not a representative of the people. While the Legislatures of the States have chosen to use suffrage of the people to choose their electors they could just as well choose to draw straws.

A popular vote of the people of the states would deny the States their Constitutional right to specify how their electors for the Executive are chosen. It would violate the sovereignty of the States and their citizens. It would allow a popular individual to convince only the most numerous population centers to vote for them while completely ignoring the people of isolated regions.

Imagine that the scoring of the World Series were changed to the equivalent of a popular vote. The first game is played at Team A's home stadium. Team B flies in the night before but gets delayed at two hops on the way and they don't make it to the motel until 6 A.M. They catch a few hours of rest and head to the game weary from their long night, Team A cleans up with a score of 50 - 0. The next 4 games reflect why these two teams made it to the series because Team B barely wins each at 1 - 0. Now, Team A has 50 points in 5 games but Team B won 4 of the games. Which do you think more closely represents the contest results, the one with the most points or the one that won the most games? Which one is really more fair to both teams?

The Electoral College is still very useful in maintaining the proportionate voting power of the sovereign States while maintaining that sovereignty. It provides an indirect method of choosing a President for the union of the States without making the people constituents of the President, a position which should really only have member States as constituents. Following the 17th Amendment, changing the election process of the President by installing a popular vote would give the people 3 branches of representation and bring the nation much closer to a true democracy. A course for anarchy would be set.....if its not already.

[Boerseun]

I see where you're coming from, but I still think it's an incredibly undemocratic institution. I also think your sports team analogy is flawed.

See it like this:

There are three states in an imaginary union. State 1 has a population of 10. States two and three has a population of 1 each. Total Union population of 12, in other words. Each state has an equal say in the appointing of an Executive President, with the powers that goes with the office. State 1 (pop.10) votes for candidate A, who is a peace-loving mediator, whose foreign policy is one of deténte and international co-operation. States two and three (pop. 1 each) votes for candidate B, who is a warmonger of note, whose foreign policy entails "screw the rest of the world, we'll do whatever we bloody well want". Candidate B wins the election 2 to 1, and has a sufficient mandate to implement his policies.

This imaginary union goes to war, with the Executive sure of the mandate given to it. It won the election 2 to 1, after all.

But populationwise? 10 out of 12 voters didn't want him there. Democratic? I don't think so.

It's all fair and fine to fall back on the "sovereign states" argument. But then each and every State must have the choice of joining the union in any military expeditions or not. The European Union's chief executive is rotational, and largely symbolic, with very little executive powers. The member states are still solely responsible for their own foreign policy and defence. Look at the European participation in Iraq, for instance. The UK is all for it, the rest of the Union is very critical of it.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

There are three states in an imaginary union. State 1 has a population of 10. States two and three has a population of 1 each. Total Union population of 12, in other words. Each state has an equal say in the appointing of an Executive President, with the powers that goes with the office.

It doesn't exactly work like that though because all three states would not have equal say in appointing the President. The number of electors in each state is more proportional to its population. So in an example similar to yours, State 1 has a population of 100 with 10 electors, State 2 has a population of 50 with 5 electors, and State 3 has a population of 10 with 1 elector. Candidate A for Al gets 10 Electoral votes and Candidate B for Bush gets 6.

But as we saw in the 2000 election, the popular vote ended up being superceded by the electoral count (and the Supreme Court as it were) based on the number of States won and their associated number of electoral votes.

Personally, I see both sides of it and have not come to a conclusion in my mind as to which method, popular vote or electoral vote, best serves the citizens of the United States. While the President may not be a representitive of the citizens according to the Constitution, it is clear the direct impact a President and the policies he pursues can have on the populus.