The President and Using The Best Available Ideas To Benefit The US

[Anthony]

i'd had this question for the last election or three, maybe some people can clear it up.

So W. Bush is in the office right now, that we all know. but during this campaign we've heard ideas on how to fix this issue and resolve that problem from 20+ candidates. now that we're down to the final 2 candidates whose ideas are close to getting implemented, pedning election. what's to stop Bush from saying "you know what, i really like McCain's solution to Healthcare, why don't i put something in motion right now?". or from saying "Obama's proposal on cutting taxes makes a ton of sense - we should be doing that right now!". why wait till elections to start implementing these great ideas from both candiates?

furthermore, what if all along during Obama's campaign, deep down inside, he felt McCain's solution for [insert issue here] was much better than his own - why couldn't he just say "i want to end bipartisanship, i really feel that instead of just providing a solution that is the direct opposite of my opponent just for the sake of providing a yin to McCain's yang, if elected President i'm going to implement his idea cuz it really would work better than my idea."

why does it have to be an "all or nothing" type thing? why can't we, as Americans, vote for the President who will embody and implement the best features from every candidate. ultimately i guess my point is what if someone like Michael Dukakis or Al Gore had a really great idea to solve a particular problem - why should not winning the presidency prevent America from being able to benefit from those great ideas? in this election each candiate has a solution on various topics that would really benefit America some way, but then you also have to elect all the other ideas that may not be as sound.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Anthony

i'd had this question for the last election or three, maybe some people can clear it up.

So W. Bush is in the office right now, that we all know. but during this campaign we've heard ideas on how to fix this issue and resolve that problem from 20+ candidates. now that we're down to the final 2 candidates whose ideas are close to getting implemented, pedning election. what's to stop Bush from saying "you know what, i really like McCain's solution to Healthcare, why don't i put something in motion right now?". or from saying "Obama's proposal on cutting taxes makes a ton of sense - we should be doing that right now!". why wait till elections to start implementing these great ideas from both candiates?

furthermore, what if all along during Obama's campaign, deep down inside, he felt McCain's solution for [insert issue here] was much better than his own - why couldn't he just say "i want to end bipartisanship, i really feel that instead of just providing a solution that is the direct opposite of my opponent just for the sake of providing a yin to McCain's yang, if elected President i'm going to implement his idea cuz it really would work better than my idea."

why does it have to be an "all or nothing" type thing? why can't we, as Americans, vote for the President who will embody and implement the best features from every candidate. ultimately i guess my point is what if someone like Michael Dukakis or Al Gore had a really great idea to solve a particular problem - why should not winning the presidency prevent America from being able to benefit from those great ideas? in this election each candiate has a solution on various topics that would really benefit America some way, but then you also have to elect all the other ideas that may not be as sound.

Well since they are lame ducks they can't really get anything done.

The ideas all are terrible so the longer we go before implementing any of them the better.

[JHandley]

I'll answer your question with a question. How do you know an idea is a great idea? How do you arrive at this consensus?

I'll admit to being largely naive about this, but I believe that for the most part, leaders and people in power make decisions based on what they think is a great idea. The differences between the canidates isn't that one wants to do bad things and one wants to do good, it's that they both have different ideas on what's good.

Now, frankly it is obvious to the brain dead that there's a lot of stubborness in politics, that people forget the actual idea and disagree with the person on principle. However, I don't think that any leader says "Boy, this will really fuck things up...we gotta do this"

It's not simply a question of why great ideas aren't implemented, it's a question of how do you arrive to the decision that something is a great idea.

[SportsDino]

I guess would anyone be willing to cross party lines to vote for a candidate who crosses party lines?

If we really had a candidate who was 'best ideas, now, I'll work with whoever necessary to get them'... I don't think they would get elected. Especially if they were third party (although you would think that an independent of that sort would be more credible to keep such a promise, everyone would probably just assume they would lose and not vote for them at all).

It seems to me there is a lot of disgust with both parties, I am hoping for the day some politician realizes this vacuum and tries a real strategy to exploit it.

[Young Drachma]

You need a base of support, with core ideas to even get anywhere. The only reason it's so close right now, is because both parties are effectively the same and are offering the same ideas only with different shades of makeup.

[JonInMiddleGA]

On the one hand I think I get what you're trying to say here. On the other hand, I'm not at all sure on how you think anything like that would be supposed to work.

I mean, if you just want Great Idea X to be implemented, all it takes is strong enough approval from Congress (to override any hypothetical veto from the sitting President) and voila, you have new legislation.

But as JHandley pointed out, there are precious few ideas that have a consensus on "that's a GREAT idea, let's do it".

I think to some extent you're falling prey to the fallacy that "divisions exist because of party affiliations" and ignoring the reality that party affiliations exist in large part because of the divisions. And among the divisions is how you define what is 'a great idea'.

[Anthony]

a lot of times it seems when you get down to the final 2 candidates, you take an issue, any issue - and you'll get 2 very different and conflicting solutions/proposals. as if one guy is taking the stance of the other candidate and simply proposing the opposite.

it seems we vote on Presidents based on what they plan to do to solve a particular problem. as if it's out of the question for someone to say for example "ok, hold up McCain - i'm gonna vote for you, but let's just talk about Obama's proposal for Healthcare...that makes a lot of sense". it's like you, as a voter, need to make compromises. "let's see, i like Obama's stance on defense, Iraq, gays, healthcare...but his ideas on education just don't make sense and are doomed to fail. i guess 4 out of 5 ain't bad."

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JHandley

I'll answer your question with a question. How do you know an idea is a great idea? How do you arrive at this consensus?

I'll admit to being largely naive about this, but I believe that for the most part, leaders and people in power make decisions based on what they think is a great idea. The differences between the canidates isn't that one wants to do bad things and one wants to do good, it's that they both have different ideas on what's good.

Now, frankly it is obvious to the brain dead that there's a lot of stubborness in politics, that people forget the actual idea and disagree with the person on principle. However, I don't think that any leader says "Boy, this will really fuck things up...we gotta do this"

It's not simply a question of why great ideas aren't implemented, it's a question of how do you arrive to the decision that something is a great idea.

when you can examine the cause and effect of implementing a new idea/solution, and you can deducde that the end result will - worst case scenario - be doing less damage than an alternate idea, that's how you can determine if it's a great idea. a great idea is one that is presented with clear solutions and steps to take that takes into consideration all angles. when you can say "this person was able to come to a conclusion, factoring in all known and unknown aspects and have covered all the bases", that's a great idea. great ideas are all a product of hindsight anyway. what i'm getting at is when a candiate can outline a clear plan that weighs all the options and you get a sense of "that sounds logical, i don't see how that wouldn't work".

nonetheless, it always seems as if we need to decide between 2 different ways of doing something, and never do you really see a case where one candidate says "i agree with my opponent on this issue and we both agree this is the way it can be solved". everything needs to be so black and white (no pun intended). there's never any point at which you get to the final 2 candidates and for a certain issue they both have the same idea.

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by Anthony

a lot of times it seems when you get down to the final 2 candidates, you take an issue, any issue - and you'll get 2 very different and conflicting solutions/proposals. as if one guy is taking the stance of the other candidate and simply proposing the opposite.

it seems we vote on Presidents based on what they plan to do to solve a particular problem. as if it's out of the question for someone to say for example "ok, hold up McCain - i'm gonna vote for you, but let's just talk about Obama's proposal for Healthcare...that makes a lot of sense". it's like you, as a voter, need to make compromises. "let's see, i like Obama's stance on defense, Iraq, gays, healthcare...but his ideas on education just don't make sense and are doomed to fail. i guess 4 out of 5 ain't bad."

Because the ideas on defense, Iraq, gays, healthcare and education are all based on the same core beliefs. The canidate doesn't think 4 out of 5 of his ideas will work, he thinks all 5 will work.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Someone doesn't become a democrat or a republican and then start coming up with ideas. They come up with ideas and then become a democrat or republican because of those ideas.

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by Anthony

when you can examine the cause and effect of implementing a new idea/solution, and you can deducde that the end result will - worst case scenario - be doing less damage than an alternate idea, that's how you can determine if it's a great idea. a great idea is one that is presented with clear solutions and steps to take that takes into consideration all angles. when you can say "this person was able to come to a conclusion, factoring in all known and unknown aspects and have covered all the bases", that's a great idea. great ideas are all a product of hindsight anyway. what i'm getting at is when a candiate can outline a clear plan that weighs all the options and you get a sense of "that sounds logical, i don't see how that wouldn't work".

How exactly do you factor in unknown aspects? You do it by speculating what you think the unknown is going to be and the effect of your idea will have. That's where you run into problems. When you start to speculate, you are no longer in a black and white area of good or bad. You're into the grey "I think this is a good idea". That's where someone's core beliefs come into play.

Originally Posted by Anthony

nonetheless, it always seems as if we need to decide between 2 different ways of doing something, and never do you really see a case where one candidate says "i agree with my opponent on this issue and we both agree this is the way it can be solved". everything needs to be so black and white (no pun intended). there's never any point at which you get to the final 2 candidates and for a certain issue they both have the same idea.

The reason we have to decide between 2 different ways of doing something is because we have only 2 major parties. If we had 4 major parties, we'd have to decide between 4 different ways of doing something. Again, we're talking about core beliefs that people know to be true.

[chesapeake]

During the first two debates, you heard Obama and to a lesser extent McCain say occasionally that they agree on something. But there is no point in expounding on things you agree on in a campaign or debate. You are trying to help people understand the differences between you, so they spend most of their time probing those points.

The current President didn't see the need for any bipartisanship until about a month ago. He has always been about taking extreme positions and exploiting the differences.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JHandley

The reason we have to decide between 2 different ways of doing something is because we have only 2 major parties. If we had 4 major parties, we'd have to decide between 4 different ways of doing something. Again, we're talking about core beliefs that people know to be true.

well, if you have 4 different solutions for something, they're not all gonna be the best way to get it accomplished. it's more of "i may not be affiliated with that party, but golly, that's one hell of an idea that i can get behind also, and it's a shame i never thought of doing it that way."

put it this way. we are four generals outside an enemy's castle in medieval times. the king asks "what's the best way to gain control of our enemy's castle, who has any ideas?". one of us says "we can take our artillery and destroy the castle and everyone in it - downside is there won't be any castle". another says "we can focus all our trebuchet's on one wall and completely obliterate it, but we'll have caused damage to the castle". another says "we can launch the dead carcasses of cows and pigs over the walls and cause disease to overcome the inhabitants inside, downside is that's going to take a while." finally another general says "we can simply give them word that since our force is many times bigger than theirs and their defeat and demise is all but guaranteed, we can give our word we will not slaughter anyone inside as long as they leave. we get in without destruction to the castle and minimal casualties."

that's 4 ideas, but not all of them were plausible. so having multiple parties in and of itself just for the sake of multiple ideas means nothing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JHandley

Someone doesn't become a democrat or a republican and then start coming up with ideas. They come up with ideas and then become a democrat or republican because of those ideas.

Now where have I heard that before

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Now where have I heard that before

I thought a parapharasing would be better

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by Anthony

well, if you have 4 different solutions for something, they're not all gonna be the best way to get it accomplished. it's more of "i may not be affiliated with that party, but golly, that's one hell of an idea that i can get behind also, and it's a shame i never thought of doing it that way."

put it this way. we are four generals outside an enemy's castle in medieval times. the king asks "what's the best way to gain control of our enemy's castle, who has any ideas?". one of us says "we can take our artillery and destroy the castle and everyone in it - downside is there won't be any castle". another says "we can focus all our trebuchet's on one wall and completely obliterate it, but we'll have caused damage to the castle". another says "we can launch the dead carcasses of cows and pigs over the walls and cause disease to overcome the inhabitants inside, downside is that's going to take a while." finally another general says "we can simply give them word that since our force is many times bigger than theirs and their defeat and demise is all but guaranteed, we can give our word we will not slaughter anyone inside as long as they leave. we get in without destruction to the castle and minimal casualties."

that's 4 ideas, but not all of them were plausible. so having multiple parties in and of itself just for the sake of multiple ideas means nothing.

Then let's go ahead and carry this out. You have 4 ideas, who decides which one is best? If you're suggesting that we have one uber-general who does nothing but decide among 4 different ideas which one is best, then is that guy supposed to never have an idea of his own? Or worse yet, he has no morals of his own?

There is very rarely a clear cut best idea. Fewer still that have zero drawbacks. What you're asking for is that everyone just simply agree that a drawback holds the same priority.

[kcchief19]

Theoretically, it would be great if a president took the "best of both worlds" and acted in moderation with a series of ideas that crossed party lines to put together a package that would make sense. If done correctly and taking from both equally, it would be possible to put something together both sides could accept.

From a practical standpoint, it wouldn't happen simply because Congress isn't in session for another month. Yes, the president could invoke "extraordinary circumstances" and order a special session of Congress, but there is no guarantee he could round up a quorum before election day. After election day, the winning side will have no incentive to make a deal because they will feel they can wait and implement their entire plan that they feel is better.

The reason we no longer inaugurate the president is March is due to 1933 -- Hoover was impotent to do anything and we had to wait almost five months to get a new president. Even 2 1/2 months may prove too long this year. Congress will have all the power in November and the could send Bush anything they want -- and it sounds like the Dems will push a their own stimulus plan.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Theoretically, it would be great if a president took the "best of both worlds" and acted in moderation with a series of ideas that crossed party lines to put together a package that would make sense. If done correctly and taking from both equally, it would be possible to put something together both sides could accept.

this is exactly what i'm saying. why can't this be done? we could call it "a la carte presidency", picking and choosing who has the best proposal and solutions to various problems.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Anthony

this is exactly what i'm saying. why can't this be done? we could call it "a la carte presidency", picking and choosing who has the best proposal and solutions to various problems.

In theory this is what 'should' happen in a democracy - it shouldn't be 'party vs party' and indeed imho in an ideal democracy there shouldn't be any parties at all, just people standing on ideals and proposals which people vote for.

The problem is party based and purely political imho, opposing parties rarely have the confidence to stand up and admit that the opposition had a good idea in case the public start thinking 'actually the opposition would do quite well in power'.

Its a bit like having an insecure boss who ignores ideas from subordinates (or 'rebrands' them as his own) because he's insecure about his own position - its crap ...

[mrsimperless]

I think it should be a requirement that our next president really knows how to google with the best of them. Or at least has someone on his staff who does.

But I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of this thread. One man isn't going to know how to solve every problem. You need to be able to listen, determine what is bs and what isn't. The key is getting the right people around you and (as mentioned above) learning how to weed out the good ideas from the bad. Deciders make decisions from the gut with no study necessary. I'm ready for a listener.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Theoretically, it would be great if a president took the "best of both worlds" and acted in moderation with a series of ideas that crossed party lines to put together a package that would make sense. If done correctly and taking from both equally, it would be possible to put something together both sides could accept.

And at best equally likely that the "worst of both worlds" is what we'd end up with. Although even that is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Case in point, I found myself agreeing with points from both (D) & (R) who opposed the recent bailout package ... but there's plenty of people here who would consider those positions "worst of" instead of "best of".

And "... a package that would make sense" begs the question "Make sense to whom?" People who have no strong opinion either way?

There are already proposals that "make sense" to a pretty significant number of people on both sides on most issues ... problem is that there's not nearly so many where some lukewarm compromise is going to satisfy either group. In effect you'll end up with plans that make less sense than their origins. It's like government by least common denominator (although there's plenty of room to argue that's what we have already but that's another thread) or "worst common denominators".

Seriously, the unrealistic avoidance of the reality that people eventually settle in parties (or oppose parties) based on their positions/proposals is starting to get a little silly here.

[Mac Howard]

As an IT student one of my final year specialities was the study of the behaviour of complex systems and the first thing that hits you is how badly the human mind handles complex systems. It can neither handle complexity - the mind prefers to focus on one thing at a time - and it cannot encompass recursion or "feedback" - by that I mean when the outcome of the system becomes in input to it working through the system to reinforce or oppose the original movement. Politics, and particularly economics, tend to deal with complex systems. Consequently, even with the best of intentions, our efforts to control political/economic systems often fail resulting in the well known "unexpected consequences" when we try.

Some argue that we should therefore refrain from acting (free markets for example) but circumstances demand at times that we simply have to act to avoid disaster - nature's answers are not always conducive to an easy life for humans.

In the scientific and technological worlds we act, monitor the outcomes, continue the successful ones and modify or abandon the unsuccessful ones. We move ahead, sometimes with small, false deviations, but move ahead surely. But in the adversarial political world, where such modifications or abandonments are ridiculed as "flip flopping", we too often insist on the efficacy of our actions in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary and drive them through until the detrimental effects become overwhelming and a majority eventually insist on abandoning the actions.

The political world hasn't yet matured to the point where it can acknowledge failure when it happens. It is still enmeshed in the juvenile adversarial system that argues that truth will emerge from the clash of extremes usually defined by ideological positions. Until the possibility/probability of our being wrong is acknowledged and a tolerance for different ideas accepted you simply will not get the agreed actions that you speak of, Anthony. Many (conservatives) will not even accept that action needs to be taken.

It's not that there hasn't been a political philosophy around for some time that argues as you do, the European "social democrats" (based on the ideas of the philosopher Karl Popper) have been arguing thus for some decades now, but even they contract the political bug of delusional infallibility too often for comfort.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Theoretically, it would be great if a president took the "best of both worlds" and acted in moderation with a series of ideas that crossed party lines to put together a package that would make sense. If done correctly and taking from both equally, it would be possible to put something together both sides could accept.

This is functionally what has happened on every bill I have had a hand in negotiating. Congress runs with votes -- if you got 'em, you win. In the Senate, even more so, since you have to have 60 of 100 in most circumstances (not all, though) to move anything. During the legislative process, you have to reach compromises on any bill to get those votes.

You can't look at this President to find a standard template for governing. He doesn't even listen to members of his own party when his Administration comes up with something. He has treated Republican leaders as lackeys for most of his two terms; and to their shame, they acquiesced.

For obvious reasons, LBJ is the example you are looking for. He understood Congress better than any other President in history and was consistently effective in getting his agenda passed.