Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
America’s Leadership Problem
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 06. 2024
- A look at the state of the presidency in the United States.
This video isn’t sponsored. If you want to support me, here are the best ways to do it:
1) Watch the whole video
2) Share it with a friend
3) Support me on Patreon: / rchapman
If you're interested, I have a little library of casual videos available on Patreon and through my CZcams membership program. Signing up gives you content more often and supports the channel. / @realryanchapman
Sources:
The Lost Soul of the American Presidency - Stephen Knott
Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention - James Madison ed. Adrienne Koch
The Federalist - Hamilton, Madison, Jay Ed. Jacob Cooke
The President Who Would Not Be King - Michael McConnell
Washington - Ron Chernow
Why Presidents Fail - Elaine Kamarck
Primary Politics - Elaine Kamarck
The Hardest Job in the World - John Dickerson
The Impossible Presidency - Jeremi Suri
Deadlock and Disillusionment - Gary Reichard
I want to start with a big thanks, as usual, to everyone who thanks and supports my work. A couple notes:
Some have noted that I didn't offer any solutions here. I didn't see that being appropriate. I really only studied and thought about presenting the problem. Solutions are difficult, and I think should be given similar time and consideration. I've seen a lot of people offer their own, and I'm personally grateful to see it and am energized by it. If that's you, thanks.
Lastly, I've seen a number of commenters here that wanted to see a greater emphasis on the role of money in politics, with some even saying it's the key to the whole problem (meaning this video can essentially be disregarded). I do think it's an important subject worth discussing, especially depending on the president, but you can take it away as a factor and the major problems presented here still remain. There's still a falling trend in support for the office, and still a problem of attracting the best and brightest of Americans to the job. Perhaps most importantly, the performance issue still remains. Presidents still wouldn't be able to do what they tell voters they'll be able to do (because of institutional blocks and the fundamental design of the role).
From my research the influence of money in politics is important, but it plays a far greater role in the problems Congress faces. I've covered that in some detail in an older video 'Why Is The Government So Wasteful?' If you wanted to cover its role shaping presidential behavior you'd have to do it on a case-by-case basis for each president (making the - I think - safe assumption that literally all presidents since Eisenhower haven't been fully corrupted by the influence of special interest money).
- Ryan
👋
The legend is back. Good to see you.
I really appreciate your work Ryan. Do you know James Lindsay? I think you and him should really have a conversation about our current situation in the West, what the future is looking like and how we best move forward. James is a defender is American/classical liberal values but he also understands its flaws. I really hope you will have him on. Many would value this. Thanks.
Great video as always.
Thank you for posting more frequently, I love your content
It seems the "best" people in America don't want to get into politics, while the less qualified people make a living (even get rich) in politics.
You got the cause and effect the wrong way round. Politicians are seen as evil and selfish for the reasons outlined in the video, thus good people don't want to ruin their reputation by getting into politics.
Tbh, I also think most good politicians stay in the local level of politics. Not because they aren't ambitious but because they think they can make the most difference that way and it's true for some aspects. Bad local governing has a worse impact tbh
It's costly to run in any position except maybe city council, and even getting your voice out there is difficult.
I never understood why americans don't just make more parties.
No one likes the current options, if y'all don't like them, gather up, form a new political group, find some people to fund you.
Like why does this work everywhere except in America? In my country, the third largest party was created in 2019 lol.
Because they understand how to game the system because they are unscrupulous grifters.
"This country will not permanently be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in."- Theodore "Teddy" roosevelt
One of the best to ever hold office.
And instead of making it a better place, the collective opts to buy passports and fly away, leaving the nest to be left crumbled and divided.
be careful of Teddy, he was in favor of eugenics...
I miss that trust-buster.
@CharlieJ69 To be fair, that was considered the forefront of science at the time. Despite the disturbing results, people thought it was helpful. Not that's it's a get out of jail free card - but it's not totally condemning office character.
Remember how everyone in high school used to vote for Student Council President and we all pretended the person would make a difference, but really we knew the Principal and Staff were still in charge?
That’s what American politics is like.
We know the figurehead doesn’t matter, when the establishment around him stays the same.
americas a technocracy now, noone who designed the system expected the state to have this much influence over all areas of life
@@dexterjettster8875 it's more of a plutocratic oligarchy
in my high-school we proved elections are rigged. we had the majority of students sign a petition not to vote for person A. person A than won. we protested rioted n walked out. person A was stripped of title and a recount showed absolute corruption. 🍻
@geoffok you get it! ive been saying these 2 words since the 90s. 🍻
anti-establishment nonsense.
Dude uploaded 1 day before the most embarrasing presidental debate in US history.
Yeah, it was embarrassing because one candidate lied every time he opened his mouth and is a fascist wanna-be (or maybe not so wanna-be) who doesn't give a damn about the American people.
The most embarrassing one was 2020. This one was more mature overall but still not up to standard.
Embarrassing for who? The idiots that actually thought Biden was running things maybe.
That sad thing is, the world got to see that our POTUS is checked out….
You meant Biden's performance, Trump had a strong performance, but his substance was just as terrible.
I think a universal problem has always been that those who actually can and should do politics, either don't want to do it, or are not given the chance.
Exactly!
Because there's a large disconnect between what politics actually are vs what people think they should be. They should be about serving the public good but in reality they're a balancing act between different groups who want different things
It doesn't help that becoming a president guarantees that half the country will hate and ridicule you. What sort of person would voluntarily subject themselves to that?
@@SmileyEmoji42 Not to mention the huge amount of stress and eyes on your every move. Smart people don't want the position because they realise it's not worth it compared to having a normal life working in the private sector. Campaigning and rising up the political ladder is no small task either and require almost your entire life.
@@SA2004YGis serving the public not about balancing the needs of different and opposing groups? Human populations are not homogenous. This is why representation and diversity matters, no?
I was a small town mayor (population ~12,000) from 2013 to 2021 in a collar county in greater Chicagoland. I was a full time scientist that worked for a Fortune 500 engineering firm and a part time mayor. I was paid about ~$2500/year to serve as mayor, so it was a very minor part of my total compensation. It was a whole lot of work and I tried to be a good mayor, and voluntarily stepped down from my position after I had achieved all of my primary goals.
I found that most people were happy with the village government - except for a handful of loud troublemakers that I could count on one hand, some of whom served with me as elected members of the board. In the end I served and took direction from the vast majority of those that were happy. I listened to but was not obligated to obey the few troublemakers.
With a few exceptions, I have great respect for anyone who aspires to political office. It is a noble calling. And it is a hard job if you do it correctly.
I have great respect for communal politicians - if you claim you want to make world a better place, you should start with your community.
thank you for your service.
The most worthy government is the one nearest to you. But few (except the most radical) care about state and local elections; the media certainly isn't a help with its focus on the national elections (which is understandable -- more ad revenue or interest in content geared to the largest possible audience).
I salute you for stepping up and involving yourself in local politics. I often see its a thankless job at times, so the fact that people with real lives beyond the office are participating in civic activity (whether in government or through community aid) however so small, gives me what little hope in the world that I have.
That's good to hear but by guess is that you wouldn't have gotten a lot of offers for *further compensation by special interests.
At higher levels that *further compensation is offered to people who should be responsible and focused on their work but instead work for what compensates them. That's how you get career politicians.
You said you had work in science and that's excellent but it also make your political work objective based like doing an experiment in a lab and recording the data- straightforward.
For a career politician it's one big act that they have to keep up and if they do fix all the issues (kind of like how you addressed the issues you wanted to address) the result would be an end to their show even if they got high respect from the people.
We shouldn't allow donations over $100 to any political figure. Especially not from billionaires or cooperations with reasons to try to mess with the law or the state (try to get away with pollution for example).
You can change the number to $1,000 or $10,000 per contribution if you'd like but we know people paying millions of dollars to politicians are scratching the backs of politicians expecting to get their backs scratched in return.
The problem is, way too many people who “aspire to political office” are simply in it for the power.
Unfortunately the skill set it takes to get elected is completely different than the one it takes to govern effectively
True
So absolutely true!
2008: Hope and change! Yes we can!
2024: No matter who wins, we lose! Which candidate will fuck us the least?
Seems pretty obvious... The candidate who is not going to champion project 2025
@@valalongtooth1 💯
We got the change 😂
Kennedy 2024! Vote for Change!
@@valalongtooth1Kennedy 2024
We should not forget about American media as well. They're part of the problem too.
Arguably the most impactful. With the last decade of being tribal "us vs them" being much worse because of the media. All propaganda in the US is now "our opposition does x bad thing, vote for us!" No mention of their own policy, just "other guys bad". I hate it
It's kind of astounding how biased and one-sided news is in America. You turn on Fox News and its broadcasting propaganda right into your living room, and you switch to CNN or MNSBC and it's not much better. I really think that the US is lacking a neutral and publicly funded news channel or network.
@@harku123Fox News is the biggest cable tv channel in the country, and that's all they do. They're the best at spinning narratives and brainwashing the ignorant. You can say that left leaning media does it too, but generally they're more fearful of their audience's pushback against manipulation.
@@harku123 In part that is a result of the voting system. People tend to vote for the most agreeable party with a chance to govern. If only one party gets that chance and you only have one vote, this effectively results in a two party system. If there are only two parties, demonizing the other is as effective and arguably easier than praising your own, especially when trust is already low.
That's what Putin said
we lamenting the status of social cohesion wit this one 🗣
Yes, and English, bro
😭😭😭
@@JH-ji6cj I think he means having a leader americans are happy with is even harder because americans dont have a cohesive identity anymore, we are hyper segemented.
@Adam-ei4oj wit what u means, bro? You obviously missed my point. You want to discuss social cohesion and identity? Start with a recognition that a National Language is a good start.
American Liberals are hilariously inclined to go abroad and learn 'other nationalities languages', yet fail to come back and see the need for English to be accepted as the dominant language of America and should be the spoken/written language.
Edit: my original comment was in regards to how poor the OC language was constructed while commenting on the lack of social cohesion. Irony
@@JH-ji6cj The lack of a national language is not a major issue regarding social cohesion. English is the de facto language of the United States, whether or not it is classified as a National language is not an issue that is of major consequence.
This might be the best-timed release of a CZcams video of all time
The responsibilities of a US president have become so complex that they are no longer possible to be given to a single person.
Being both the head of state and the head of government responsible for 50 states and foreign policies is just too much.
You should add that not many human on earth can approach easily complex phenomenons like mondialized economy, fast technological shifts, worldwide mass media or climate runaway, those non-linear phenomenons can be previsible (you know they somehow exist) but unpredictable (you can't anticipate when and how they will affect your society).
so what do you think is a better way to go about it? (genuinely asking)
@@vickmay3898 I think a semi-presidential form wherein the President (head of state) have reserve powers while a Prime Minister (head of government) run the day-to-day duties of the executive.
@@Carlo-zk2cy no thats so european and a waste of time
@@Carlo-zk2cyhow about we shrink the federal government like the founding fathers said.
Like we can cut all three letter agencies. FBI,CIA,IRS,ATF,NSA,etc.
Then open fort Knox and federal res. do another count.
Then rip up the Patriot act and sign in only American citizens can own land and only land owners can vote.
Our leadership problem is too much focus on the Presidency, as if we are trying to elect a king of some sort, and very little focus on the politics happening in your backyard, where the results are. A significant part of the job is yours, to know, and to vote, to involve yourself somehow, to do a little campaigning of your own for what matters to you, and doing that job brings relief from the feeling of impotence that plagues so many of us. It's worth it, even if you don't ultimately get your way. Something to consider.
You’re right and I think this idea should be more wide spread. Thanks for sharing
Correcto
When the President of the United States is allowed to bypass our entire system with Executive Orders, this is what you get.
I didn’t vote for President Biden to take my money and hand it over for student loans. In fact, no one did. He just did it, and the Supreme Court tried to stop it, and he’s still doing it.
Until we defang the Presidency, people are going to care who is President.
The blame for that lies at the feet of our education system.
@shawnbottom4769 that among so many others. Hopefully, we figure it out before we collapse :/
What competent person would seek exhausting, vilified impotence?
Why bring marriage into this? Jkjk
@@JH-ji6cj You'll forever be single, then?
@@aletheiai Yes 🗿
Very well said
Because it would be better that a competent person do it, then let an incompetent person do it and ruin everything for everyone else
It's not in decline. It's operating exactly as intended: to enrich a small group of super-rich billionaires and corporations. Blackrock, Vanguard, Boeing, Lockheed M, etc...
Yep. If you aren’t in on the nationwide money laundering scheme, you don’t get in office.
Another problem is that there has been a shift from insider Presidents to outsider Presidents. However, outsider Presidents struggle to get anything done, because they lack any personal connections with those in office.
When the system is so corrupt and toxic the lead roles only attracts the worst of the worst.
These are not leaders only petty predators, opportunists, puppets and con artists.
This seems like an overly cynical take. As was said in the video, induviduals can only be expected to act in their own best interest. Its the job of the system politicians work within and the electorate to restrict and align their range of action to align with public interest. I highly doubt modern politicians are worse people than those in pre-1940s America, and they are almost certainly more competent/informed. I think the difference today derives from the pressures modern media puts on elected officials and the forced transparency new media has wrought.
@@dunerh Disagree, people behave how they are conditioned to behave. When the incentives creates an environment where its all about self benefit and lack of accountability, you can always expect them to behave badly even with more information then their predecessors.
This is a question of values and our value system have been completely turned on its head, hence all the bad outcomes we see today.
The real challenge still unresolved by humanity is, what is society for? What kind of world and society do you want you and your children to live in? What is more important in life?
We simply don’t have our priorities aligned towards the continuity of the species.
@@xchazz86and do you have your priorities thought out? See this is a issue with the ideology of a democracy. It cannot operate because it's by designed to be fragmented i.e Churchill quote on democracy.
But it is we who elect them.
@@dunerh Hmm..."almost certainly more competent/informed"? I think not. If they were, we wouldn't be fighting endless wars. We (Uncle Sam) wouldn't be escalating this proxy war with Russia or goading China or allowing Israel's savagery. Or...or...
What I like about Ryan is that he seems to be one of the very few truly non-partisan people commenting on politics and public life.
Yeah for sure. He's great
He’s also just exceptionally good at explaining really complex ideas in very simple terms that are easily digestible. A gift of the silver tongue.
Meaning liberal and centrist.
I find his bias to be obvious, but bias isn't per se bad. An unbiased person has nothing to say.
he's certainly no communist. I think it's clear he's somewhere between center left and center right, which really is the most prudent place to be. personally, I can't nail him down any farther than that based on his videos. am I missing something? @@CalebDiT
Absolutely everyone in America needs to watch this.
My undergrad poli-sci prof taught a senior level class called "the promise and problem of US democracy" and focused specifically on this video's topic. general public needs more education on it, 100%
I have students who say they are more okay with a dictatorship from the right to restore the traditional household; and other students who -- while not saying it explicitly -- seem to expect that their colleagues from that camp will just quietly disappear while they campaign and shame their way through the march of progress.
This video clarifies a lot of this divide and it makes me appreciate the research you put into these videos.
I suspect that the ones who think they will quietly disappear truly think they will make them disappear. Thats the leftist way
Think of all the freedoms and privileges afforded to us, that previous generations fought and died for, that students today take for granted and yet are so easily willing to discard. They won't fully appreciate their freedoms until they're gone.
Dictatorships are all fun and games until the oppression is turned on you. All to enforce some sort of backwards morality to dictate how people you will never meet live their lives. It's sick.
It’s saddening to see increasing numbers of people embrace authoritarian action on behalf of the Executive.
@t700e desperate measures for desperate times. I don't think we're there yet but I can understand people who think we're close
@@SA2004YG still, would that even be “America” anymore? Hell, you can say “America” disappeared long ago I guess.
"Once you've given up your independence you never get it back and one shouldn't underestimate what that does to people"
That is applicable to so much more than just the Presidency.
like what?
@@KarlMarcus8468 like...life, man
@@KarlMarcus8468like Ukraine russian war
@@Jacob-qr8pl I think I was more trying to ask what could people do that shouldn't be underestimated. What are your thoughts?
edit: I reread the comment I was asking the first question to, it ends with "and that goes for much more than just the presidency" that's what I was responding to. I asked, like what, what else beside the presidency?
@@chozer1 are you saying that the Ukrainians' who defend their homeland are an example of the lengths people will go to and that shouldn't be under estimated?
I think that's a good example. I think that's a good sign that the Palestinian people who are also having their freedom systematically taken away from them by a much larger force are also showing the world what humans do when you take that humanity from them.
The people with no desire for power or politics are the ones that should be in office. The ones we get are those who want to be there.
I'm reminded of the excellent film Dave, or is that just something an Australian would say.
The ancient Greeks chose short-term leaders, who often did not want the job..
Robert Chapman's analysis of America's leadership problem resonates with Oswald Spengler's seminal work, "The Decline of the West." Spengler's cyclical theory of civilizations suggests that cultures, like organisms, have a natural lifespan: they are born, mature, decline, and eventually die. Spengler argued that Western civilization, having reached its peak, was entering a period of irreversible decline, characterized by decadence, cultural exhaustion, and the rise of Caesarism-a form of autocratic rule led by charismatic figures who promised to restore order and stability.
Chapman's observations about the increasing centralization of power in the American presidency, the growing political polarization, and the unrealistic expectations placed on the president can be interpreted through Spengler's lens as symptoms of this broader civilizational decline. The expansion of presidential power, driven by crises and the desire for solid leadership, mirrors Spengler's concept of Caesarism. The polarization of politics reflects the fragmentation and internal conflict that Spengler saw as characteristic of a declining civilization. The disillusionment with the presidency and the yearning for a saviour figure resonates with Spengler's notion of cultural exhaustion and the search for a new source of authority.
While Spengler's thesis is not without its critics, his ideas offer a thought-provoking framework for understanding American leadership's challenges and the broader trajectory of Western civilization. Whether or not one agrees with Spengler's deterministic view of history, his work serves as a reminder that even the most influential civilizations are not immune to the forces of decline and decay.
The best of us are the too silent. Meanwhile the lousiest are the loudest.
It doesn't help that americans tend to self implode for the stupidest reason.
I'd be concerned if the loudest weren't the loudest.
I think the lousy hugely outnumber the best, hence the silence
It's not really about the best or lousiest.
The people who should be in politics either don't have a voice (the poor) or are comfortable doing what they love. They don't have any interest in wielding power.
The people who shouldn't have power, namely the rich and corporations who already have economic power and naturally seek to have more power, are in the best position to gain political power, either directly or indirectly.
Over time, the extremes have gotten more extreme, including the types of people who could run for office. The only types of people who can really run for office are people who had a pretty good upbringing but have somehow managed to remove the rose tinted glasses from their face to see the enormous amount of problems going on in this world.
There is a SEVERE lack of these people. And it's mostly because well off people are completely isolated from the poor. And the media certainly does a terrible job in highlighting problems due to inequality. They lean into the problems even, making them worse.
Amen brother
I like how I read the title and clicked the video and then Biden popped up asking for donations
He popped up for me just near then end right when the video was at its most pessimistic portion, describing how broken the system is, and how the people running for office are hopelessly locked in a battle of trying to win support, only to have more than half the country pissed at them. That was the moment that Biden asked me for money….,
Holy cow, me too!
Sameee
Vote RFK.
@@omegablackzero7951 The anti vaccine conspiracy nut?
Take money and corporate interests out of politics. Problem solved.
Money and corporate interests are not the only dangers. Any prudent government workers know that consolidation of power by anyone is harmful. Right now, the people have too much power in some ways where they’re pushing for and voting in really bad leaders - it’s the tumultuous act of the masses. The checks and balances are not working because the masses want the kind of change that only a bad government can make happen. The masses give into greed in all forms - they need a check, as well, and right now, there isn’t much - they’re being pandered to whether genuinely or deceptively. This is why the founding fathers were very internal in their governmental workings.
Ryan, we’re blessed to have content creators like you. Thanks for the work you do!
Another interesting effect of this is what it does to other countries that are influenced by American culture. Here in Australia the Prime Minister doesn't have anything close to executive power but because Aussies are so plugged into American news, they end up voting based on the same types of promises that US presidents make (though admittedly at a smaller scale)
You must win the Second Emu War, or you have failed as a leader
( Nixon shock 1971) will happen again in 2024 😎 But this time you won’t lose part of the value of your money, you will lose it all. US dollar ⤵️ BUY GOLD ✅
One thing I think is different is that Australian politicians are significantly less prone to overpromising and sensationalising (not saying they don’t do it, just that it happens less than America). If you check “promise trackers” on news websites for what this and past Governments have done you’ll see that they end up doing most of what they promised to do (although not all of it)
I wouldn't automatically assume that's all attributable to the US. I think some of this is just what Democracies can eventually decay into. The founders and various other societies weren't just wary of it because they were evil and power hungry.
Australia is essentially a pseudo colony of the USA. USA owns Australia's foreign and domestic politics. Sad
It is not a lack of good leaders, it is the lack of having the choice to choose good leaders
It’s both, what good leaders do you see that weren’t choosable?
Bernie comes to mind.@@olivergilpin
As well as other third party politicians
Seems to me nobody wants to give anyone outside of the big two a chance. Just to name one, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were really good picts and not in the big two but only got a small percentage of the popular vote. So I'm going to have to disagree with you statement. And just to slum up this I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter.
Democracy 101
European here. The desire of the American people for a dictator for POTUS doesn’t scare me nearly as much as the desire of the American people for a messiah for POTUS.
That why I have been trying to leave the US in order to avoid imperial politics.
Very well said Sophie.
I'm terrified. I wish I could vote for Biden twice.
Have y'all heard of Project 2025 in Europe? I post about online and I've offered 100 bucks to anyone who can prove that it's NOT a christo fascist authoritarian manifesto.
@@selenium-es7hl If you are pregnant and suffering from complications as a consequence of legalised medical maltreatment, you could apply for refugee status in Belgium, on arrival. Your husband and your children will enjoy the same hospitality and protection.
A dictator controlling America of all nations (backed by Americans themselves) would be more disastrous than a "messiah" for the worlds sake. Honestly its probably the worst case scenario. Imagine a repeat of 1930s Germany but on a much larger scale. WHO would stop such a country controlled by a megalomaniac evil genius surrounded by nothing but oceans, weak neighbors, has all of the resources it could ever want, largest economy, and big enough population (which could easily draft the largest standing army).
When people like Trump, Biden, RFK Jr., and AOC end up calling the shots, you know something is wrong with America.
Well stated !
At least Biden and AOC have integrity and care about making life better for Americans. Trump is a narcissistic racist who care only about his next grift.
THIS is CZcams!
( Nixon shock 1971) will happen again in 2024 😎 But this time you won’t lose part of the value of your money, you will lose it all. US dollar ⤵️ BUY GOLD ✅
That's what she said
Unfortunately not, but it should be. I'd download an app and pay a subscription fee just to watch Chapman
The Coming Caesars by Amaury de Riencourt is a good book on this. Basically shows the parallels between the growth of America to that of the Roman Republic and ultimately into the Roman Empire. That since WW2, the executive branch has become more powerful and more conditioned towards autocratic tendencies until eventually the people desire it due to lack of belief in the old institutions.
Looking it up, sounds intriguing
*thanks
It takes a certain type of psychopath to want to control and tell others how to live
✡️🫣
Their jobs are so hard that they come out multi-millionaires after only four years. While also only making 250k which never ads up 😒.
Well stated !
Speaking engagements and book deals are incredibly lucrative for an ex pres. Alongside the networking and investment potential all while making money and having every need or want comped by the government. The accounting ain't that difficult if you're inclined towards it.
that money is for losing 4-8 years of their life and a life long hatred with half of americans
Last time I was this early, America still trusted their government 🇺🇸😂😁🙂🙃😭
About 250 years too early it seems.
( Nixon shock 1971) will happen again in 2024 😎 But this time you won’t lose part of the value of your money, you will lose it all. US dollar ⤵️ BUY GOLD ✅
We really went downhill after 9/11. The worst tragedy in American history was exploited by our government to mislead us, and we've never regained the same level of trust in our institutions again
You're over 50 years old?
One thing I read recently that I thought was interesting was an article in the Harvard Business Review from 2002 in which the authors researched leaders in their 60s and 70s and leaders in their 30s and 40s (remember this was 20 years ago). They found that the older leaders had role models like FDR, Eisenhauer, JFK, DiMaggio, or other celebrity leaders, while the younger leaders were much more likely to identify coaches from their youth, parents, family members, community leaders, pastors, etc.... The article was not specifically about that, so there was really just two sentences about it... but it really got me thinking about what that could mean.
I'd be interested in reading that but I can't seem to find it, do you recall other details? Also, what then did you begin thinking about after reading it?
Culture collapse
@@KarlMarcus8468Dimaggio??
All of those presidents were deeply flawed. The fact that they are idolized in retrospect is part of the problem.
I appreciate your calm demeanor. Most youtubers nowadays tend to shout into the mic the entire video
They get richer and we get poorer.
They’re mostly all talk. They tax tax tax and things like homelessness only get worse. 😢
Now it's a crime to be homeless. How can a society with such priorities survive?
Why? Example. The average senate candidate needs to raise 45k a day, 365 days a year, for 6 years straight in order to have the funds necessary to compete in just one race. Considering the average American can’t afford the disposable income necessary to donate anything remotely close to 10k a year (or more), it becomes blatantly obvious who the winning candidate is going to serve. The same is true for any of the other major (and a great many of the minor) political position races across the country. It’s not that we can’t have good leaders, the money players among us don’t want that. They want corporate serving yes men. With rare exception, the only times we get what we want from government is if and when those desires were already what money wanted in the first place.
While there are many terms for it, imo what best describes the US government, when, including Congress and Senate, they answer only to their wealthy donors makes it a plutocracy. A government run by the wealthy few/oligarchs. Money doesn't care for morals/ethics, nor does it really care for country loyalty. Money also, is really good at sapping the humanity of those entranced by it. The US stopped becoming a "democracy" or even a representative republic the moment corporate bribery became legal. This was the intended road the US was ultimately going to end up in - a government controlled by greed: makes their governing jobs much easier, and leaves them with a wealthy retirement plan, but at the cost of their humanity - inviting people without humanity into politics as integrity and egalitarian values erodes further and further.
It's easy to make this rhetoric without giving specific evidence in favor of it. Spending on campaigns is far less effective than you suggest. Remember Bloomberg for example?
@@lightfeather9953 Taking Bloomberg as an example - the person does have to be charismatic in at least some peculiar way in order for the spending to be effective but, effective or not, it is the spending that puts them in front of the public.
@@lightfeather9953 you absolutely need a lot of money to campaign. This is pretty much accepted fact. That does not mean you only need money--which is what Bloomberg was banking on
Your maths add up to almost 100 million dollars. Are you sure about what you've written?
Few things will interrupt my day more than a Ryan Chapman video!!!!
( Nixon shock 1971) will happen again in 2024 😎 But this time you won’t lose part of the value of your money, you will lose it all. US dollar ⤵️ BUY GOLD ✅
Low bar
@@justadildeau possibly
Excellent video.
This phenomenon trickles all the way down to even mayors, county and city commissioners, etc. There is an increasing (and unfair) expectation of what people in these roles are able to accomplish single-handedly. And, I agree, though, that some of this burden is of their own making at times.
Thank you, Ryan. This is a vital issue, particularly after the recent Trump/Biden debate.
You don’t post videos that often but when you do, it’s an almost certain masterclass. Thanks for your work and please keep it up!
A good candidate needs to have a comprehensive plan to solve the nation's present problems.
A great candidate needs a clear vision of the future of the nation, even if they never get to experience that bright future themselves.
May I quote you? So many need to internalize this before they go headlong electing their tribal favorite.
@@oswarz sure 👍
Impossible with liberal democracies.
The Greek proverb, "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in,"
Even your requirement to define a good candidate is a pipe dream. Having a comprehensive plan that solves even one present problem is Nobel worthy. The truth is, these problems aren't actually solvable. There are too many people with too many competing interests that the best you can do is find the least bad (most acceptable) compromise for everyone. And this optimum will be changing constantly as people and their opinions change constantly.
This should be required media for all Americans
I was in high school in the early 1970s. Between the Vietnam war, the incipient drug culture, and the anti-establishment pressure brought about by the left, it was drummed into our heads that the people of the USA could not trust their government. Since then, both political parties use this distrust as a hammer against their political foes. Thus, the distrust of government in general, and the lack of enthusiasm for the office of the president, are also a product of sixty years of an incessant drumbeat of that anti-establishment pressure.
The most controversial thing one can say during election fever is "If your candidate loses, you will be ok".
That's true mostly.
I think things are getting worse so people think they need a quick solution but more than the presidency needs to kick in for things to get better.
Corrupt business, media, and law enforcement have all led to what we have now.
I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton in 2016. When Trump was elected, I literally laughed my ass off, just knowing how many people were wailing and moaning that Clinton had lost. Funny thing, same thing when Biden won vs Trump, another chuckle thinking of those people who were so invested in Trump were doing the same thing. These people have more in common than they realize.
@@omegablackzero7951 I don't remember 2020 trump loss having anything close to the reaction 2016 Hillary loss had. There were videos of crying, democrat teachers taking the day off, and etc. When Trump lost everything just sort of...went as normal. I hardly saw any conversation at all.
@@KonglomeratYTthere was an entire riot on the capitol because trump lost, what do u mean?
@@KonglomeratYT That is objectively not true, as there were insurrectionists live streaming their assault on Congress.
Thank you! Your channel is worth subscribing to. Please do a comparative analysis of various contemporary approaches of governance around the world.
The election system is main problem. This present system guarantee that only 2 main parties GOP or Dems will win. And both parties have no incentives to create breakthough policies. They just have to be the same with a little push each time. Because of the same policies they still different from the other one. People will always vote against the dislike one.
Imagine If there are 3rd party with more interesting policy and values of any right or left they re not gonna be elected as majority because most people would fear that voting for 3rd or 4th parties will result in the win of another side.
For example if there are more Left than Democrat or more right than GOP. People who use to vote for Dems might like the 3rd one more than Dems. However in the bollot in the present system they would vote for Dems in the calculative move that voting for newer parties will end up lost and GOP will win
But if the election system is
1) allow you to vote more than 1 round, like the France "double majority" or
2) can specify by number proiritizing which party you want most and 2nd and 3rd in that case If your most preferable c andidate is lost your second candidate still count for ex. Australian style
3) Have a partylist and regional mp and % of party list vote determine %of mp in the house (German style)
These would create more dynamic in policy making and get America out of the loop that result in 2 parties always win and they are not too different from each other as they tried to make to feel
The old election system (Winner takes all, One majority vote, etc.) Inanycountries. Always result in favor of 2 big old parties and undermine change by the reson we mention earlier
If America change the election system. We would see change and hope in US and also in this world
The presidency was such an inspiration growing up, both for the country and personally. The romanticized version of a president in the West Wing and the conniving Machiavellian work in House of Cards show the extremes of what the office is viewed as now. Nominally what we want the president to be and what we generally see the president as. Either someone who is working actively for the American people or serving themselves for the arbitrary goal of power. Such high expectations are never met, and as we perceive the president as failing we have higher expectations for the next one in order to fix the past mistakes too. It’s a cycle that seems to be unbreakable. Insiders perpetuate the system while outsiders either attempt to change the system without having the power or knowledge to get to the core problems of our democracy, or they use the chaos for their self gratification.
And yet, democracy is the only known system of government that prevents the concentration of power to a small group of people. The Constitution was designed to ensure the distribution of state and federal power. But its inability to change and the abuse of those in power to maintain the status quo at the expense of a vast majority of Americans has disastrously eroded public confidence in our democracy.
This was definitely a ramble, but this cycle of domestic cynicism is destroying our country from within. And the solution is optimism and actively working the make the system work for all of us. And that’s easier said than done, but again belief and being optimistic is what’s needed. The government will not change if people who still believe in its capacity to actually serve the public decide not to enter politics, even though it’s completely understandable.
Thanks to whoever read this all the way!
I think the root of the problem is addition of the extra-constitutional fourth branch of government: the administrative branch. An unknown number of agencies now report directly to the president, with little or no meaningful congressional oversight, usually run by political appointees plucked directly from donor lists and corporate boards.
"And yet, democracy is the only known system of government that prevents the concentration of power to a small group of people." Lol you really don't know your history. It always ends in Caesarism because it can't get anything done and is mob rule in the end at late stage.
@@whynotmorewhisky
See- if more people payed attention too the fine print like you I think u.s. and the entire world would be better off.
That's actually why I look for people who read the fine print and give important nuanced statements on issues instead of "I'm gonna fix it because I'm a real go getter!"
If it was just a broken road hard work would fix it but we deal with complicated and dangerous issues that require that wise nuance like yours where you can see where the problem is coming from and why.
When YOU imagine being the president you imagine making peace.
Setting firm fair rules against n'er-do-wells and helping those who need your help most.
When the career politicians who want to become president become president they think of the publisher they'll talk to so they can print their "what being the president is like" book or the corporations who will slip them a few million just to never investigate pollution.
That's the difference.
I believe in your dream.
I don't believe in the greed of those who seek power for personal gain over their responsibility to the nation.
"And yet, democracy is the only known system of government that prevents the concentration of power to a small group of people." Well that's a crock of sh1t
I said this in the previous video yesterday and I will say it again with this reupload. You are the only one I know who can talk politics without being political. And I wish I can show every American this video.
( Nixon shock 1971) will happen again in 2024 😎 But this time you won’t lose part of the value of your money, you will lose it all. US dollar ⤵️ BUY GOLD ✅
I’m new to politics and I was appalled to learn that what we are currently experiencing isn’t the status quo of political environment. The level of vitriol and tension seems to be escalating with increasing signs of violence within politics as a means of political power. I can’t even imagine what this political system will look like in a decade or two. There needs to be some major changes in the way Americans continue to approach political rivalries with a modicum of restraint and tolerance. This is not a sustainable situation.
The problem is having a single leader. We should learn from the Swiss, who’s democracy is even older than ours, and adopt a rotating presidency.
Considering the amount of vitriol there has been in American Politics since the 70's, its hardly surprising some of the best don't get into US politics. Most candidates are compromise candidates until necessity pushes forward someone outstanding.
I don’t know what to say. I just wanna compliment you on the amazing work you do. I always look forward to seeing your uploads. You bring a sense of clarity to the noise. Thank you.
The solution appears to be small government, not as a moral issue but as a practical limit of actual control.
I'm beyond happy for discovering this channel today
Thank God I haven't missed alot
Thank you for articulating so well what I've tried to make my friends and family see. Keep up the hard work, though the future so often seems bleak. There is always hope until there's no tomorrow.
Iam a Kenyan and i cant be happier for this video today
Best of luck with the popular unrest in your country. I don't have the political knowledge to understand who is right or wrong, but either way I wish you a positive outcome that lowers corruption while maintaining the sanctity of government and the rule of law.
Bless Kenya 🇰🇪
Definitely one of the most beautiful nations in the world.
I hope your political system becomes as beautiful and graceful as your countryside. ❤️
Thank you, and your country, for the best President of the modern age America and the world had ever seen. God bless you 🙏
My wife and I were literally talking about this yesterday. Our summation was that the truly smart people don’t want to go into public office because they don’t want to go through the trouble and heartache of all the political BS when they are doing just fine in the private sector.
Very smart perspective. Thank you for a great video!
Everyone's too preoccupied with "my guy is better than your guy" and fail to see that ALL the guys are awful for the country.
The problem is one of them is going to win. So it has to be which one is going to do the least bad.
That said. Even if they both went to jail (might be ok with this one :)) and someone else entirely got nominated and won. Would it actually change anything? Or would it just direct our hatred towards a fresh target?
Nah I think for the most part most Americans can tell that every presidential candidate sucks.
Appearantly not cause they keep voting these same shit lords in.
@@mitonaarea5856
@@mitonaarea5856 I hope you're right. It's hard to judge if it's a loud small minority or if it's actually a larger one
Excellent analysis
Another problem I see is that people believe that it’s only the president calling the shots. It’s not. It’s the congressmen and congresswomen that have been seating in those chairs for decades that are calling the shots. Congress can still veto a president vote.
Another problem is also the citizens themselves. Yes, we are also to blame. Because we either blindly pick a candidate just because of their parties, what our family & friends tell us. Or just straight up not liking whoever the candidate is.
Many people. Do not think. Most of them don’t even know why they are voting for the president. Because they see the color red or blue and automatically assume that they are the best choice.
Another problem is that young people don’t vote as much. Boomers are too stuck up with their ways for a change and keep voting for the same broken system.
While everyone else just stands by and does nothing. Doing nothing, or staying silent, is also a response.
Regardless, nothing will change if we don’t make the effort to change. We can have a good leader in the seat, but will just be fighting the government, their lobbyist that funds their pockets, and the people who disagree with what the president has to say.
My question is: Why did we let Presidents get so much power over the public?
The whole concept of the presidency was to be limited. But at some point presidents tried to make promises they weren't supposed to make (like FDR, JFK etc.).
Because people are disinterested in the political process as a whole and is largely rigged one way ot another.
A truly honest and open society would make election day a national holiday and only use paper ballots that can't be deleted or changed.
It's certainly possible that instabilities owing to polarization could cause the whole thing to derail, but it's not likely imminent. People tend to romanticize the past as more stable and less polarized than it was. The U.S. has always been a chaotic mess, with brief interludes of cohesion, often only due to very unfortunate challenges, or the rare emergence of broadly likeable leaders. Polarization waxes and wanes, but never goes away.
The chart at 19:31 seems to disagree, although I haven't looked into the source and its methods. Polarization is certainly a factor in derailing our democracy and effectiveness of government, and though it's not an immediate threat it should be taken seriously as it doesn't seem to be waning anytime soon. I'd argue because of polarization, there's a much smaller room for a challenge like 9/11 to unite us and an even smaller, nigh impossible space for a broadly likeable leader to emerge.
@@rshua I agree that the chart requires some background information to properly assess, but I'm not saying polarization isn't high. It is, and it has been caused very deliberately by those who have made an industry of it. But it's obvious that it isn't worse now than when the nation was literally at war with itself, and that didn't end us, so there's no certainty that today's comparatively civil divisions will either. It is neither impossible, nor certain, but I deem it unlikely.
@@crawkn I agree it's unlikely polarization alone will end us, but it's an important factor in today's geopolitical situation. We hold significantly more geopolitical weight today than the US of the 1860s, and the world has changed dramatically since then. China and Russia today are the Britain and France of the Civil War, and the world's eyes are on us. Although we aren't at an issue as fundamental and divisive as slavery was, I don't think we have been this divided since the Civil War, mainly through the argument of a broadly likeable leader being impossible.
In today's polarized political climate, there can be no Eisenhower, no FDR, and no Teddy. The biggest issue is that the trend is only getting worse, with no such leader existing in the future either. The exceptions I see is a leader who is able to improve the economy for EVERYONE, which also seems nigh impossible(this video pretty much explains why), or a leader that unites everyone against a common enemy, and considering the fact it'll probably be China, that would have unthinkable consequences.
My point is even if we survive a political climate similar to the antebellum period, it would have extreme consequences for both us and the world at large. Though we lack a fundamental driving force such as slavery, we nonetheless seem to be heading there.
@@rshua I agree that the stakes are higher now, and a rebound from the current degree of division more difficult, but I don't agree that the emergence of a broadly popular leader is impossible. Broadly popular doesn't mean universally popular, and nobody expects those with the most extreme political positions to be satisfied with a centrist, but the reality is that there are more centrists among voters than extremists.
They simply must settle for someone further right or further left than they would ideally prefer. What will likely move the dynamics of elections significantly is the trend toward ranked choice voting, allowing people to vote their centrist first choice, without rendering their vote ineffective in the event that the main contest is between more polarizing candidates. Even though most elections may still be won by two-party candidates, a growing number of votes for moderates will not go unnoticed, and will influence the platforms of the currently more extreme parties.
It is also the case that the current climate of extreme polarization is largely due to an individual populist having an unprecedented influence on one of the parties. It seems clear from recent election outcomes that Trump's support doesn't actually transfer well to other candidates, and he won't be around forever.
@@crawkn You've convinced me a broadly popular leader is possible since I think a "silent majority of centrists" exists, and Trump and Biden both realize this and try to cater to them in different ways. Trump feeds on their cynicism and disillusionment of politics and government, while Biden has a mix of moderate politics and American exceptionalism.
Though ranked choice voting would be in the right direction, I don't see the trend moving there, whether at the primary or national level. I might be wrong and the hope would be I am. Plus as you mentioned, there are people who've made an industry out of polarization, and I'm sure those interests would slow this progress.
The main issue keeping us from rebounding from division might be the (justified?) cynicism and disillusionment, as that'll make people less likely to settle for a moderate. It's why Trump, or at least populism might be around for longer than we think even if they're just perpetuating that same disillusionment.
Beautiful. Great research. Great presentation. Great accuracy. Thank You. Thank you for changing my mind about a few things I misunderstood. And for advancing my knowledge to a better understanding.
genuinely one of the most intriguing and informative videos i’ve ever watched, thank you for this, I want to get into politics as a career and hopefully run for president when i hit the legal age to and this video helped clarify lots of things, amazing video man good job.
Still the best essayist on CZcams. I applaude you.
this should be broadcast across all local news channels and promoted across social media! People have forgotten!
I love your calm and reasoned explanations. You do a wonderful job.
( Nixon shock 1971) will happen again in 2024 😎 But this time you won’t lose part of the value of your money, you will lose it all. US dollar ⤵️ BUY GOLD ✅
I am quite young, and not even a US citizen but I really enjoy your videos. I try to get a better understanding of the world from an unbiased Point of View so I really find your videos amazing. Sadly my opinions often get influenced by anything I see on social media so I have trouble making up my own mind and thinking for myself. I always look forward to watching your videos and I hope you continue to make them.
I know my question might sound silly or immature but with the elections coming up, and the fact that as of late it has always been "vote for the lesser evil" I was wondering if there is anything that can "save" the US. It is evident that the people are suffering but it feels like the People in charge of stopping the suffering are only making it worse. So I would like to know what is wrong and how it would get better.
Once again, sorry if my question is odd and not well thought out. I don't learn about this in school but it very much interests me
You could give power to 1,000 pre school and kindergarten kids and you’d risk it going better than it has for 100 years.
“With leaders like this how can you not get high”. Access is severely limited. Educated truly informed citizens electorate is required along with checks and balances to keep their selected voted in leaders, for a purer democracy and crucial unfettered election process are key. The vulnerability of our Commander n Chief” factor ever increasing Id not considered. It’s a complex world where anything can happen anytime.? This was an eye opener thank you.
Maybe you missed the part of a video where he presented this quote:
"had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob"
I take that to mean that the intelligence and education level of a citizenry becomes increasingly irrelevant as you make democracy more universal, transparent, and direct.
The founders knew this, so they restricted who could vote, and they restricted who could be voted for (such as the states appointing their own senators, instead of subjecting it to a popular vote).
But we no longer practice democracy in the way that it was practiced after the nation's founding. We practice mob democracy, and we do so in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society, which we were warned against by Aristotle. He thought democracy could only exist within a "philia", a flesh-and-blood fraternity of citizens, and lacking that, democracy would devolve into ethnic rivalries, and tyrants would take advantage of these divisions to assume power.
When you put something in quotes, it implies it is a quote from the content you consumed. Please provide a timestamp as I sincerely did not hear that in the video and expect you mean it as 'you saying it'?
Also, excusing drug use out of social frustration is just extremely lame and lacks character (if by high, you mean escapism through substance/drug abuse). Don't play a victim.
( Nixon shock 1971) will happen again in 2024 😎 But this time you won’t lose part of the value of your money, you will lose it all. US dollar ⤵️ BUY GOLD ✅
@@bigplant7901 This!
This has got to be the most thought provoking video in your channel. I don't live in the USA, but I can extrapolate all of what you exposed here on the leaders of my country.
I don't think it's just a problem in the USA, this is a worldwide problem.
Regardless of you what views you express and defend, what you are making here, is a beacon of thought.
It's what makes idolatry a thing to be vilified. We all make mistakes and it's the distillation process that counts. I'm not about destroying and defacing statues, but I do find them kind of stupid and religious at the point that they are on public display. Socrates took dumps too, the level of intrusion and transparency will only get worse before we figure out ways to either accept or make better our reactions to foibles by leaders and icons.
Ryan. Thank goodness for people like you. In the next coming years, you will be a voice of reason for America. Stay strong, brother, and from a veteran. Don't stop giving unbiased information. There are very few we can trust today. ❤
Excellent video. I mostly agree save for some points of emphasis. Your point about presidents creating unrealistic expectations for themselves is one I hadn't heard/considered before. The problem is that we've seen a very sharp and very recent downward trend in quality of Presidents and congress. My variation in emphasis would look something like below:
1) Partisan Gerrymandering. While gerrymandering doesn't affect the President directly, it does affect the general political climate. The rise of computer-mapping software in the 2000 census cycle allowed hyperaccurate maps where politicians pick their voters, not vice versa. This is hollowing out the middle of our elected representatives, and they in turn affect the electorate, which in turn drives electorates to either love or hate Presidents. There's no middle. This happens because gerrymandered districts, even more subtly gerrymanders, often make for noncompetitive general elections. The only threat to an incumbent is to be 'primaried', a fate so common now that it has become a verb. This leads to incumbents governing more extreme to protect against this.
2) Primaries. You spoke to this to some degree, but I would argue it's worse even than you portray it. Partly, primaries combine maliciously with gerrymanders, but also they turn a quarter to a third of a President's term into 'campaign season'. Indeed, Bill Clinton's team claimed there was ONLY campaign season. Primaries weed out the most broadly acceptable candidates. We should move towards a ranked choice (or similar) system that can be resolved in a single election where the same population of voters can resolve the entire election (rather than 2-3 elections spread out over a year or more). This would also allow people who want to make protest votes to do so without creating a spoiler effect and should give rise to a more dynamic polity. Ranked choice would also allow younger politicians to run 'get to know me' campaigns and see how successful they are which would build support for the next cycle. Right now, only the top candidate advances to the general election, and in most primaries, young up-and-comers drop out before super tuesday. So they can never build a national profile the way people with longer times in the public eye can and have done.
3) The Imperial Presidency. You mentioned this, and I wholeheartedly agree. The Presidency has become far too powerful. Legislative power belongs with the legislature. Calling something a regulation or pointing to a vaguely written statute doesn't make it okay. Congress does not have the power to delegate it's legislative responsibilities. In order to depower the executive though, we need a better functioning congress, which is why the gerrymandering and primaries are so important to reform. I would go even a step further and argue that the Attorney General and DOJ should be split off into a separate structure, with the AG becoming an elected post with 4 year terms elected 2 years offset from the President. But that's far more radical a proposal.
4) Campaign finance. IMHO, the effect of money on elections is smaller than most people think, but because politicians BELIEVE it is large, the effect of money on POLICY-MAKING is huge. Campaign finance reforms over the years however have reduced the ability of parties to spend money. This sounds good, until you realize that it means special interests therefore replaced 'soft money'. That 'soft money' was mostly spent on challengers in general elections, creating more competition (albeit challengers still usually lost), is something people seemed to just overlook during the debate at the time. We should restore parties' ability to spend on elections so long as they are transparent about it. It's the lesser evil as it will dilute the direct power of special interests on specific policymakers. It won't go away, but it will dilute it.
5) Electoral College. Look, we'll never get agreement to end the electoral college entirely. It's too important to less populated states, and it really only comes into play in elections that are quite close. It's an eclectic tiebreaker. It only feels important because we've been having so many close elections lately. But the thing about the electoral college that is REALLY in need of reform, and unlike abolishing it altogether might actually be something that could pass, we should mandate that EC votes be allotted on a proportional basis. So Imagine a state with 10 EVs, the leading candidate wins 50.1% of the vote. Rather than getting 10 EVs, he gets 6. And so on until all EVs are allocated. Why? Because this means people in single-party dominated states MATTER now. If you're a blue in a red state or a red in a blue state, you could potentially help move your state down over a threshold to award one less (or one more in the reverse scenario) EV. This would mean extreme positions would be more punished. Pandering to JUST swing states would be punished. You'd really have to campaign to the whole country.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” or in this case this comment section.
( Nixon shock 1971) will happen again in 2024 😎 But this time you won’t lose part of the value of your money, you will lose it all. US dollar ⤵️ BUY GOLD ✅
Therefore we must have a dictator.
You’ve certainly proved your own argument.
@@thelouster5815I personally prefer a Philosopher King, but hey, ketchup/catsup.
Sit with someone for 30 minutes and you'll understand how great democracy is when legal bribery isn't law and our motive for production isn't capital. 5 minutes? A single comment? This is what's wrong with people. You expect to learn from each other without putting in any effort. Again, 30 minutes of actually listening and respectful debate, and you'll see just how much you have in common.
My diagnosis is that technology has changed how the election process works. Ever since FDR and the radio, presidential candidates have relied on a certain degree of charisma to sway elections. No longer were people just voting on the issues. With the coming of TV and the Internet, this increased the need to wear makeup, show off, and make grand speeches.
Voting for a politician now is like voting for American Idol, personality and entertainment is at the center of the election. Populism is growing, because we’re voting for cult leaders not representatives.
It went further back than that. Look at political cartoons or newspapers, especially from the 1800s-1860s. Candidates made speeches, wild promises, did their opponent dirty, made populist appeals, claimed to be an average guy. All the stuff we see today. It's just it is a lot MORE of it now, thanks to the tech/media.
The idea that people should even care that much about who the president is has been a big problem for the country.
The polarization in America is real, and I'm glad you pointed it out. I'm glad you pointed out, as well, that the nominating process has changed, in that we essentially have 2 elections now - the one in the Primaries and then the general election. It seems to me that the country got better candidates prior to 1972, when the primaries became the nomination method. That's because the parties developed their "platforms" first - what they stood for, how they'd govern. Then the best candidate to run on the platform and carry it out once in office became the nominee. As well, the parties were more "big tent" - southern Democrats were conservative, northerners were more liberal, generally. The same dynamic held true in the Republican party, though it wasn't as region-based, perhaps. So the parties themselves weren't polarizing; it's only since the 2 parties became homogenized internally that the divisions became as heated and hateful as they are now. I'd like to see you do a similarly thoughtful video on how America might possibly get back to "big tent" parties - or do we need to flush both parties and start over with new ones? I am despairing over there ever being another meaningful 3rd party to emerge. Is it possible for state parties to begin decoupling their primaries from the delegates they send to the national conventions? Will either major party back away from primaries as their method of nominee selection? If there was ever a time we need to have this discussion, it's now.
特别喜欢您频道！等了好久啊
Love your channel, been waiting for the new video 👍
Genuinely great video. Something I can send to my friends on both ends of the spectrum, in the tiny hope we can move back towards normalcy.
That debate last night made me want to cry more than it made me scared or angry. I can’t believe we have come to this as a country. This has to be the bottom, because we as a people have to collectively put our foot down and say enough of this nonsense. This is a joke from both parties
It started in 1975 when the supreme court let corporate money into politics.
It has been all downhill from there
I always appreciate hearing your thoughtful musings.
Ryan as one of the only political channels that I will legitimately show to anyone. These are incredibly well researched formatted, and explained topics.
Thanks Ryan your videos are concise and full of facts.❤
this video fucking rules, this was so incredibly engaging and thought-provoking and informative, I would marry this video
The culprit: Citizens United, SCOTUS, 2010.
If you're going to treat corporations like people for the sake of punishment, you don't get to then not treat them like people for the sake of political donations. You can thank the environmentalists for that one
@@mapsdot9223 Corporations are not people, they are corporations. End of story.
@@mapsdot9223 Fairly old comment I'm replying to, but:
You blamed Citizens United on environmentalists. Can you support that claim with credible evidence and good reasoning? How did environmentalists treat corporations like people?
From what little I know about Citizens United, its biggest function/trait is allowing lots of dark money into politics. Is that untrue? Can individuals do the same? I think not.
@@synupps877 the CWA, CAA, RCRA, CERLA and TSCA all changed the regulatory framework for punitive remedies against corporations which allowed them to be sued as an entity and even made up the RCO doctrine as a means of accountability regardless of that person having knowledge of any wrongdoing. That's straight up shady.
@@mapsdot9223 Thanks for the good reply.
Corporations being "sued as an entity" as opposed to not being able to be sued? Is this what your argument (that environmentalists are culpable for Citizens United) is based on?
I'll have to look up the acronyms.
Your videos are uniquely unbiased yet pull no punches. Thank you.
I was hesitant to click on this video because i didnt know your channel existed, but im glad I did. Thank you for being a voice of reason in this increasingly divided American culture.
Thank you for posting this video. You have perfectly captured how I currently feel about the current situation of our country.
Another great video by Ryan Chapman.
I want freakbob in office NOW
What if instead of President, they were called the Freakident
Freakbob 2024 😩😩😩😏😏😏
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." - Agent K
What do you expect when the entire American political system is entrenched in political donations and being affiliated with rich corporations that have their own political agendas?
The American political system is clearly the problem, not just the Presidency. You take the rhetoric of Obama for example:
Pre-Presidency he was a genuine progressive with some very interesting ideas on how to help spread socialised welfare, healthcare and education across the US. However, there was a marked shift in tone once he took office because he was absolutely hamstrung by a system that made it nigh on impossible to do anything meaningful.
I recall hearing a J Cole line where he said "they gave a brother the wheel but didn't tell him that the ship was sinking"... Like, that is in essence completely correct.
The political donation and electoral college systems need a complete overhaul for America to ever have a President that can invoke genuine change... Sadly, American politics has become so insanely divided and partisan that neither party want to let go of a system that can prevent them from stopping the other from making meaningful changes to the country.