Narrator: "He was, indeed, fucking around." Jokes aside, we really, really don't need a loudmouth with no political experience running for president. After Trump I'll never again say that it's not...
Narrator: "He was, indeed, fucking around."
Jokes aside, we really, really don't need a loudmouth with no political experience running for president. After Trump I'll never again say that it's not possible for them to win, but it would do no one any good for him to hold the seat.
I dunno about that, but I'd wager that most places would be better off if most of our politicians had 0 political experience, but at least a shred of integrity. Corruption is what kills democracy,...
a loudmouth with no political experience
I dunno about that, but I'd wager that most places would be better off if most of our politicians had 0 political experience, but at least a shred of integrity. Corruption is what kills democracy, not lack of experience.
Indeed. There are many stories about non-career politicians arriving to a leadership role and doing a far better job than anyone else has done. Zelenskyy is one very current example, in fact.
Indeed. There are many stories about non-career politicians arriving to a leadership role and doing a far better job than anyone else has done.
Jon Stewart running for president is the concept behind Man of the Year starring Robin Williams. It’s free on YouTube right now if anyone wants to check that out.
Jon Stewart running for president is the concept behind Man of the Year starring Robin Williams. It’s free on YouTube right now if anyone wants to check that out.
Lack of experience breeds corruption. When politicians don't have experience they don't know how the system works or who are unbiased sources to talk to for input on the effects of policy. Where...
Lack of experience breeds corruption. When politicians don't have experience they don't know how the system works or who are unbiased sources to talk to for input on the effects of policy. Where their experience has gaps lobbyists step in to fill them.
Also poorly structured policies create poorly run bureaucracies which will be inefficient at best and corrupt at worst. And usually the inefficiencies breed corruption since anti-corruption measures will also be inefficient.
Experienced politicians are often demonstrably corrupt. So that makes the question: which is more corrupt, a newbie or a vet. I think, on average, the vet. The system is sort of ad hoc designed to...
Experienced politicians are often demonstrably corrupt. So that makes the question: which is more corrupt, a newbie or a vet.
I think, on average, the vet. The system is sort of ad hoc designed to promote corruption. Nearly everyone involved is owned by capital. Even if you choose not to deal with the represtentatives of the existing power structure, they can still choose to deal with you. Every day brings new opportunities to cross ethical lines in order to accomplish your cherished goals. When you find you can't accomplish them any other way, how long can you resist? And that's just naive politicians who go in actually believing in things. The ones who saw the landscape clearly from the start have been seeking out corruption from day one.
There are of course notable exceptions, but the majority of the time corrupt is part of the definition of veteran politician.
I say all of this not to disagree with your points specifically, but rather to point out something which I hope continues to make it's way farther into the zeitgeist: Capital owns our political systems. So, experienced in politics means experienced in paying homage to capital. Not that an inexperienced politician is necessarily any better, but they sometimes stand a chance of making a positive impact, if only on the conversation, before they are fully digested by the beast.
None of this is in support of the imaginary Howard Stern 2024 campaign, though he certainly couldn't do worse than the new breed of politician Trump has enabled.
I don't think this sort of unearned cynicism is actually substantiated by anything. Often people just say "corruption" to refer to any policy outputs they dislike. For example: Like what does this...
Experienced politicians are often demonstrably corrupt. So that makes the question: which is more corrupt, a newbie or a vet.
I don't think this sort of unearned cynicism is actually substantiated by anything. Often people just say "corruption" to refer to any policy outputs they dislike. For example:
Nearly everyone involved is owned by capital. Even if you choose not to deal with the represtentatives of the existing power structure, they can still choose to deal with you.
Like what does this even mean? This isn't referring to corruption, this is just not liking the political priorities and values of the people in power.
There are of course notable exceptions, but the majority of the time corrupt is part of the definition of veteran politician.
Is this based on anything but vibes? Have you actually done any kind of comparative analysis?
Oh wow, no not vibes. In this context, this is too big a topic to even know where to start and exactly why I wish it were a bigger part of the cultural conversation. If the concept is truly so...
Is this based on anything but vibes?
Oh wow, no not vibes. In this context, this is too big a topic to even know where to start and exactly why I wish it were a bigger part of the cultural conversation.
If the concept is truly so distant in your mind I think I'd need to share decades worth of journalism in order to establish just how bought and paid for the western political system is.
You can, however, get there from first principles if you consider late stage capitalism.
You cannot solve corruption by electing even the most decent non-political people. Corruption is a symptom of a rotten political system, not of rotten people. That's not to say there aren't rotten...
You cannot solve corruption by electing even the most decent non-political people. Corruption is a symptom of a rotten political system, not of rotten people. That's not to say there aren't rotten people or rotten people in politics don't exacerbate corruption, but rotten people can be dispensed with if system itself is working in a healthy manner.
I don't want to give the example of Trump because it's an easy example, but he was the most non-political person to ever run as president and he was also likely the most corrupt — ostensibly so. I cannot even imagine where the world would be, let alone the US, if he had a modicum of competency.
Integrity is important, but integrity without experience can’t get anything done. And often, what appears to be a lack of integrity is really just practicing compromise but with a different set of...
Integrity is important, but integrity without experience can’t get anything done. And often, what appears to be a lack of integrity is really just practicing compromise but with a different set of priorities.
I would argue what’s really missing in America is a sense pf common purpose. At various times, our common lurpose has been “The American Experiment,” manifest destiny, defend the homeland, advance the science. But now it seems it’s all simply some version of personal fulfillment.
Contemporary conservatives feel this much worse than I do, but in their turn to fundamentalism, not only do they oppress vast swaths of people, they fail to understand that common purpose cannot be externally imposed.
I’m not certain what, or even whether, solution may exist. I’m an agrarian and point to the land uber alles. It’s a useful organizing principle, but only among folks who share those values. I wish I could find a way to extend it to a more pluralistic polity.
You don't think the executive branch ran reasonably well on auto pilot under Trump until COVID hit? When you think of the most effective leaders, those who had the greatest impact both good and...
You don't think the executive branch ran reasonably well on auto pilot under Trump until COVID hit?
When you think of the most effective leaders, those who had the greatest impact both good and bad, did they make highly effective executive decisions, or did they unite hearts and minds towards a single impactful cause?
I do not, in fact, believe that. There was catastrophic loss in the diplomatic corps, and people nominated to run departments they really shouldn't have. The corrosion in the administration will...
I do not, in fact, believe that. There was catastrophic loss in the diplomatic corps, and people nominated to run departments they really shouldn't have. The corrosion in the administration will take time to work back out, and the people who retired rather than work under those circumstances represent a permanent loss of training and institutional memory.
It looks like they will build nuclear weapons. (Unless it's a negotiating tactic.) Talks are stalled. How bad that is, I suppose depends on Iran's leadership. US, Iran in tense sea incident;...
It looks like they will build nuclear weapons. (Unless it's a negotiating tactic.) Talks are stalled. How bad that is, I suppose depends on Iran's leadership.
On Tuesday, the IAEA said its inspectors verified Iran was preparing to enrich uranium through a new cascade of 166 advanced IR-6 centrifuges at its underground Fordo facility. Already, Iran has one cascade of IR-6s operating at Fordo, near the holy Shiite city of Qom, some 90 kilometers (55 miles) southwest of Tehran. They enrich up to 20% purity.
The IAEA said Iran has not told it yet the level at which the second cascade will be enriching. Iran has yet to publicly acknowledge the new cascade.
They will definitely build nuclear weapons. Our pitch to them for the longest time was "Stop developing nukes so we can bully you more effectively." This was obviously a stupid pitch. The Obama...
They will definitely build nuclear weapons. Our pitch to them for the longest time was "Stop developing nukes so we can bully you more effectively." This was obviously a stupid pitch.
The Obama nuclear deal was a landmark shift and it was rooted in a foundation of restoring trust between ourselves and Iran. We reassured them that we were no longer interested in bullying them, that they had a role to play and legitimate interests in securing a geopolitical order of the Middle East and Central Asia, and that they should stop the nuclear program as a gesture of good faith.
Then Trump broke that faith. Why would they ever have reason to trust us again? Even if they trusted Biden (which they do) they now know our political system is too batshit and incoherent to trust over the long term.
Another rich white man who hasn't heard the word no in the past 30 thinks he can heal the ails of a nation with ideas he thinks no one else has ever thought of before. Because if this moment calls...
Another rich white man who hasn't heard the word no in the past 30 thinks he can heal the ails of a nation with ideas he thinks no one else has ever thought of before.
“I said to [co-host] Robin [Quivers], and I hate to say this, but, but I said to her, ‘I’m actually gonna probably have to run for president now,’” Stern said following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, effectively ending federal protections of abortion rights.
Because if this moment calls for someone, it's another man. What a novel idea. Fucking hell. Narcissism is truly the disease of our century.
It's not even that he's a man. To me, it's that fact that he's a man who has so little experience or understanding of how our government works, that he thinks the president alone would be able to...
It's not even that he's a man. To me, it's that fact that he's a man who has so little experience or understanding of how our government works, that he thinks the president alone would be able to get any of these things implemented.
Obviously, a competent man can help find a way to fix the equality of rights disparity between men and women. My criticism is how tone deaf it is step forward at a time like this to proclaim you...
Obviously, a competent man can help find a way to fix the equality of rights disparity between men and women. My criticism is how tone deaf it is step forward at a time like this to proclaim you have the answers when you clearly are just fucking around. It signals privilege I can only attribute to a certain group of people and it shows a deep misunderstanding of how critically heavy this moment is.
Not only that, but this is a problem that can't be solved by a president. We currently have a president who supports abortion rights. If there's something he could do about it, he would. For some...
Not only that, but this is a problem that can't be solved by a president.
We currently have a president who supports abortion rights. If there's something he could do about it, he would.
For some reason people have this conception of the president as some sort of all powerful god king that can just do whatever they want. It's not, nor should it be that, despite the branch becoming more powerful with every administration.
On paper, in terms of formal authority, it's more powerful. But in terms of having the administrative capacity to see through systematic changes or build something functional the Presidency is...
On paper, in terms of formal authority, it's more powerful. But in terms of having the administrative capacity to see through systematic changes or build something functional the Presidency is probably less capable than it has ever been in modern times.
“The problem with most presidents is they have too big of an agenda. The only agenda I would have is to make the country fair again.”
“The only reason I would run and I start — I went into a long-winded speech over the weekend to Robin about how I am going to do the very simple thing that’ll set the country straight: One vote, one person, no more of this Electoral College, I’m getting rid of it. And then Robin said, ‘Well, can you do that as president?’ And I said, ‘I don’t know, let’s find out!’”
“The other thing is, if I do run for president, and I’m not fucking around, I’m really thinking about it, because the only other thing I’m going to do is appoint five more Supreme Court justices,” Stern added. “I’m not afraid to do it. As soon as I become president, you’re gonna get five new Supreme Court justices that are going to overturn all this bullshit.”
I mean in effect the platform is just null, because he, indeed, could not do any of those things as President, so unless the platform also includes "become dictator of the United States" it may as...
I mean in effect the platform is just null, because he, indeed, could not do any of those things as President, so unless the platform also includes "become dictator of the United States" it may as well be a blank list.
You could make the same argument around healthcare or environmental legislation or most other presidential platforms. The president can't unilaterally change the constitution, but the president...
You could make the same argument around healthcare or environmental legislation or most other presidential platforms.
The president can't unilaterally change the constitution, but the president can focus his party on the one issue deemed most urgent.
The thing is, quotes like and makes me think that he doesn't know that. Which does not bode well. It's also why a) Presidents tend to come from long careers in their party and b) presidential...
The thing is, quotes like
And then Robin said, ‘Well, can you do that as president?’ And I said, ‘I don’t know, let’s find out!’”
and
if I do run for president, and I’m not fucking around, I’m really thinking about it, because the only other thing I’m going to do is appoint five more Supreme Court justices
makes me think that he doesn't know that. Which does not bode well.
It's also why a) Presidents tend to come from long careers in their party and b) presidential platforms are lengthy and multifaceted. Because
a) given the restrictions on presidential power, these moonshots require excellent party politics to build a coalition that will vote for it in the legislature. Arguably, it may be more efficient, if less exciting, for Sterns to become a house majority whip, rather than president for these Constitutionally legislative ideas
b) Presidents do a lot of things, and a fraction of their time is spent on moonshots. Sterns platform, and quotes, makes it sound like if he were elected, he'd "try it out" and "not fuck around", then find out, that, yeah, President can't change the election system, nor reform the judicial system, it's actually quite clear in the Constitution.
Then, we'd have an incompetent bureaucrat with no functional vision for anything that can be accomplished. He'd probably throw around some executive orders that will be halted by injunction from federal courts before being overruled because they're highly unconstitutional, mismanage some federal agencies, and damn this sounds familiar.
The fact that he doesn't know that the electoral college is defined in the constitution, and in fact, no, the president can't get rid of it is all the evidence you should need to know he'd be a...
no more of this Electoral College, I’m getting rid of it. And then Robin said, ‘Well, can you do that as president?’ And I said, ‘I don’t know, let’s find out!’”
The fact that he doesn't know that the electoral college is defined in the constitution, and in fact, no, the president can't get rid of it is all the evidence you should need to know he'd be a bad one.
The thing is, when in power there's more than one issue to deal with. Making decisions on all issues isn't an elective. Having single issue folks is a problem: will they make the "right" choices...
The thing is, when in power there's more than one issue to deal with. Making decisions on all issues isn't an elective.
Having single issue folks is a problem: will they make the "right" choices based on my views as a voter? If they haven't expressed an opinion on an issue, how do I know what they'll vote/do on an issue?
Too small an agenda is also a hugely problematic platform.
A number of issues no-one could foresee will appear during the term as well. That's when we have to vote in the best representative to deal with those situations and matters as they arise.
Most of Bernie's talking points from 2016 became the center of conversation for 2020. None of them have yet come to pass, which I think speaks volumes. An awful lot of time spent talking about...
Most of Bernie's talking points from 2016 became the center of conversation for 2020.
None of them have yet come to pass, which I think speaks volumes. An awful lot of time spent talking about them, some initial progress, then inevitable backsliding and "bipartisanship".
It's easy to say those things, but to actually make them happen is not going to be easy. I fully support all of these things, but it isn't as simple as just getting elected. I can't imagine...
It's easy to say those things, but to actually make them happen is not going to be easy. I fully support all of these things, but it isn't as simple as just getting elected.
I can't imagine someone with zero experience navigating the backrooms of Washington D.C. would be able to get it done, especially with the current Democratic leadership.
They've done very little to stop this from happening (whether through inaction or through a lack of sufficient numbers to force through legislation, it doesn't matter) and they're still around so...
They've done very little to stop this from happening (whether through inaction or through a lack of sufficient numbers to force through legislation, it doesn't matter) and they're still around so I wouldn't hold my breath.
For example, Joe Manchin is still around despite being a major roadblock for years now.
Narrator: "He was, indeed, fucking around."
Jokes aside, we really, really don't need a loudmouth with no political experience running for president. After Trump I'll never again say that it's not possible for them to win, but it would do no one any good for him to hold the seat.
I dunno about that, but I'd wager that most places would be better off if most of our politicians had 0 political experience, but at least a shred of integrity. Corruption is what kills democracy, not lack of experience.
Indeed. There are many stories about non-career politicians arriving to a leadership role and doing a far better job than anyone else has done.
Zelenskyy is one very current example, in fact.
I'll grant you the point in the abstract, but do you know anything about this guy that argues for him doing a good job as president?
Oh lol Stern? Hell no. But Jon Stewart? I'd vote him in any day.
Jon Stewart running for president is the concept behind Man of the Year starring Robin Williams. It’s free on YouTube right now if anyone wants to check that out.
Also this writeup:
https://petersage.substack.com/p/jon-stewart-for-president
Lack of experience breeds corruption. When politicians don't have experience they don't know how the system works or who are unbiased sources to talk to for input on the effects of policy. Where their experience has gaps lobbyists step in to fill them.
Also poorly structured policies create poorly run bureaucracies which will be inefficient at best and corrupt at worst. And usually the inefficiencies breed corruption since anti-corruption measures will also be inefficient.
Experienced politicians are often demonstrably corrupt. So that makes the question: which is more corrupt, a newbie or a vet.
I think, on average, the vet. The system is sort of ad hoc designed to promote corruption. Nearly everyone involved is owned by capital. Even if you choose not to deal with the represtentatives of the existing power structure, they can still choose to deal with you. Every day brings new opportunities to cross ethical lines in order to accomplish your cherished goals. When you find you can't accomplish them any other way, how long can you resist? And that's just naive politicians who go in actually believing in things. The ones who saw the landscape clearly from the start have been seeking out corruption from day one.
There are of course notable exceptions, but the majority of the time corrupt is part of the definition of veteran politician.
I say all of this not to disagree with your points specifically, but rather to point out something which I hope continues to make it's way farther into the zeitgeist: Capital owns our political systems. So, experienced in politics means experienced in paying homage to capital. Not that an inexperienced politician is necessarily any better, but they sometimes stand a chance of making a positive impact, if only on the conversation, before they are fully digested by the beast.
None of this is in support of the imaginary Howard Stern 2024 campaign, though he certainly couldn't do worse than the new breed of politician Trump has enabled.
I don't think this sort of unearned cynicism is actually substantiated by anything. Often people just say "corruption" to refer to any policy outputs they dislike. For example:
Like what does this even mean? This isn't referring to corruption, this is just not liking the political priorities and values of the people in power.
Is this based on anything but vibes? Have you actually done any kind of comparative analysis?
Oh wow, no not vibes. In this context, this is too big a topic to even know where to start and exactly why I wish it were a bigger part of the cultural conversation.
If the concept is truly so distant in your mind I think I'd need to share decades worth of journalism in order to establish just how bought and paid for the western political system is.
You can, however, get there from first principles if you consider late stage capitalism.
You cannot solve corruption by electing even the most decent non-political people. Corruption is a symptom of a rotten political system, not of rotten people. That's not to say there aren't rotten people or rotten people in politics don't exacerbate corruption, but rotten people can be dispensed with if system itself is working in a healthy manner.
I don't want to give the example of Trump because it's an easy example, but he was the most non-political person to ever run as president and he was also likely the most corrupt — ostensibly so. I cannot even imagine where the world would be, let alone the US, if he had a modicum of competency.
Integrity is important, but integrity without experience can’t get anything done. And often, what appears to be a lack of integrity is really just practicing compromise but with a different set of priorities.
I would argue what’s really missing in America is a sense pf common purpose. At various times, our common lurpose has been “The American Experiment,” manifest destiny, defend the homeland, advance the science. But now it seems it’s all simply some version of personal fulfillment.
Contemporary conservatives feel this much worse than I do, but in their turn to fundamentalism, not only do they oppress vast swaths of people, they fail to understand that common purpose cannot be externally imposed.
I’m not certain what, or even whether, solution may exist. I’m an agrarian and point to the land uber alles. It’s a useful organizing principle, but only among folks who share those values. I wish I could find a way to extend it to a more pluralistic polity.
You don't think the executive branch ran reasonably well on auto pilot under Trump until COVID hit?
When you think of the most effective leaders, those who had the greatest impact both good and bad, did they make highly effective executive decisions, or did they unite hearts and minds towards a single impactful cause?
I do not, in fact, believe that. There was catastrophic loss in the diplomatic corps, and people nominated to run departments they really shouldn't have. The corrosion in the administration will take time to work back out, and the people who retired rather than work under those circumstances represent a permanent loss of training and institutional memory.
All fair points.
The consequences are yet to be seen, but cancelling the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran seems pretty bad.
I honestly hadn't been following that one. Is it bad?
It looks like they will build nuclear weapons. (Unless it's a negotiating tactic.) Talks are stalled. How bad that is, I suppose depends on Iran's leadership.
US, Iran in tense sea incident; Tehran preps new centrifuges
They will definitely build nuclear weapons. Our pitch to them for the longest time was "Stop developing nukes so we can bully you more effectively." This was obviously a stupid pitch.
The Obama nuclear deal was a landmark shift and it was rooted in a foundation of restoring trust between ourselves and Iran. We reassured them that we were no longer interested in bullying them, that they had a role to play and legitimate interests in securing a geopolitical order of the Middle East and Central Asia, and that they should stop the nuclear program as a gesture of good faith.
Then Trump broke that faith. Why would they ever have reason to trust us again? Even if they trusted Biden (which they do) they now know our political system is too batshit and incoherent to trust over the long term.
Another rich white man who hasn't heard the word no in the past 30 thinks he can heal the ails of a nation with ideas he thinks no one else has ever thought of before.
Because if this moment calls for someone, it's another man. What a novel idea. Fucking hell. Narcissism is truly the disease of our century.
(Apologies for the rant.)
It's not even that he's a man. To me, it's that fact that he's a man who has so little experience or understanding of how our government works, that he thinks the president alone would be able to get any of these things implemented.
Obviously, a competent man can help find a way to fix the equality of rights disparity between men and women. My criticism is how tone deaf it is step forward at a time like this to proclaim you have the answers when you clearly are just fucking around. It signals privilege I can only attribute to a certain group of people and it shows a deep misunderstanding of how critically heavy this moment is.
Not only that, but this is a problem that can't be solved by a president.
We currently have a president who supports abortion rights. If there's something he could do about it, he would.
For some reason people have this conception of the president as some sort of all powerful god king that can just do whatever they want. It's not, nor should it be that, despite the branch becoming more powerful with every administration.
On paper, in terms of formal authority, it's more powerful. But in terms of having the administrative capacity to see through systematic changes or build something functional the Presidency is probably less capable than it has ever been in modern times.
I fully support this platform.
I mean in effect the platform is just null, because he, indeed, could not do any of those things as President, so unless the platform also includes "become dictator of the United States" it may as well be a blank list.
You could make the same argument around healthcare or environmental legislation or most other presidential platforms.
The president can't unilaterally change the constitution, but the president can focus his party on the one issue deemed most urgent.
The thing is, quotes like
and
makes me think that he doesn't know that. Which does not bode well.
It's also why a) Presidents tend to come from long careers in their party and b) presidential platforms are lengthy and multifaceted. Because
a) given the restrictions on presidential power, these moonshots require excellent party politics to build a coalition that will vote for it in the legislature. Arguably, it may be more efficient, if less exciting, for Sterns to become a house majority whip, rather than president for these Constitutionally legislative ideas
b) Presidents do a lot of things, and a fraction of their time is spent on moonshots. Sterns platform, and quotes, makes it sound like if he were elected, he'd "try it out" and "not fuck around", then find out, that, yeah, President can't change the election system, nor reform the judicial system, it's actually quite clear in the Constitution.
Then, we'd have an incompetent bureaucrat with no functional vision for anything that can be accomplished. He'd probably throw around some executive orders that will be halted by injunction from federal courts before being overruled because they're highly unconstitutional, mismanage some federal agencies, and damn this sounds familiar.
The fact that he doesn't know that the electoral college is defined in the constitution, and in fact, no, the president can't get rid of it is all the evidence you should need to know he'd be a bad one.
The thing is, when in power there's more than one issue to deal with. Making decisions on all issues isn't an elective.
Having single issue folks is a problem: will they make the "right" choices based on my views as a voter? If they haven't expressed an opinion on an issue, how do I know what they'll vote/do on an issue?
Too small an agenda is also a hugely problematic platform.
A number of issues no-one could foresee will appear during the term as well. That's when we have to vote in the best representative to deal with those situations and matters as they arise.
Yes, but having one individual hammer home one issue can change the entire party. Look at the effect Bernie had, and he was all over the place.
Most of Bernie's talking points from 2016 became the center of conversation for 2020.
None of them have yet come to pass, which I think speaks volumes. An awful lot of time spent talking about them, some initial progress, then inevitable backsliding and "bipartisanship".
It's easy to say those things, but to actually make them happen is not going to be easy. I fully support all of these things, but it isn't as simple as just getting elected.
I can't imagine someone with zero experience navigating the backrooms of Washington D.C. would be able to get it done, especially with the current Democratic leadership.
I can't imagine the current Democratic leadership would remain elected much longer if they blocked the one issue their president was elected for?
They've done very little to stop this from happening (whether through inaction or through a lack of sufficient numbers to force through legislation, it doesn't matter) and they're still around so I wouldn't hold my breath.
For example, Joe Manchin is still around despite being a major roadblock for years now.
"Make America Fair Again"... great concept. I could even see it on a hat.