Is there something wrong with the US Presidency? Since the 70s, a thief, an adulterer, an invading despot ...

Question

Is there something actually wrong with the whole process? Is it a case of "All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely"? If so, why are the problems not so common in any other powerful country?

Sorry, just a quick addition because (as I kind of expected) a lot of people are taking this to mean that I think it ONLY happens in the US - including one idiot who has accused me of not knowing anything about other leaders.

The point is, of - say - UN veto countries, or - say - the top ten economies, the US has at least three major transgressors in recent times. No-one has sited more than one example from the others.

'cited', not 'sited' sorry. Oh, and I'm not American.

Answer 1

Let's take a look at why these people were elected.

Richard Nixon was a washed up politician back in 1962 when he failed to win the Governorship of the state of California.

Roanld Reagan was a washed up actor when he did win the Governorship of the state fo California in 1966 on a platform of getting tough with student protesters at the University of California at Berkeley.

Richard Nixon came back to win the Presidency in 1968 on a platform to get tough on the rioters in the streets.

Both Nixon and Reagan rode to the Presidency based on the fear of the general population of the rioters in the streets.

Essentially the extreme left which was responsible for the riots managed to give two washed up politicians, that is Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan a second chance to come back and win the Presidency.

The population of the United States does not trust the extreme left. Even though the registration is a majority for the Democrats there are a significant number of Democrats who will not vote for a candidate that appears to be too far to the left.

That is also what was responsible for the election of a weak candidate like George Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Al Gore and John Kerry appeared to be dominated by the extreme left of the Democratic party. George Bush capitalized on that fear and won the Presidency.

Bill Clinton was very good at keeping the extreme left hidden from his campaign. Bill Clinton appeared much closer to the center than Al Gore or John Kerry.

Answer 2

The reason we are getting such abysmal candidates rests substantially due the egotisitcal, slimy, unprincipled press.

Ever since the heady days of Woodward and Bernstein, journalists crave fame like a crack wh@re desperately lunging at her next fix. Every Presidential candidate (and his family) is subjected to such invasive and humilliating scrutiny that no one wants to run. Only people with the most well guarded secrets or bland lifestyle are feasible candidates. Anyone a bit colorful wouldn't make it even to the primaries.

Imagine, if a modern day Benjamin Franklin ran for President, he'd be villified by the press. Someone of such unique brilliance would never have the chance to lead our great nation.

These problems are not so prevalent in other countries because the press there is either more restrained, or they simply do not have such easy access to "public" information. I now live in the Czech Republic, and famous people here live normal lives; they can eat in whatever restaurant they choose, and no frenzied fans or voracious press is going to hound them.

The reason you are dissatisfied with the recent Presidents is because the press has gotten out of control.

Answer 3

They've probably always been that way -- just media coverage is different. As well, the primary system ensures that the most mediocre candidates are the ones who end up being the final nominees of their parties. For example, Obama is probably better than Clinton, but she'll get 30-40% in enough states to win the nomination while his vote totals will vary because he's much more fired-up (some people vote for bland candidates, such as John Kerry).

Answer 4

Yes, the corrupt greedy special interest groups are behind setting up their picks. Look how the last two elections were held with dubious means. The one they picked is sure doing their bidding. Total involvment of the people here and reform of the voting process & also knowing who we are voting for could solve the problem. But the powerful money-changers have gained alot of ground.
Many here talk of other countries having problems but which one can say they have overthrown 50 Democratic Govts and have the right to invade other countries for their own profit?
I don't like the way this makes our country look as we the people knew little about most of these tasks.

Answer 5

I had a professor in college who said that the office of President seems to attract folks who like to live large and crave power. It stands to rights that these folks would also have big appetites for other things in their lives. And the difference since the 70's is that reporters turned a blind eye to sexual and other misconduct before then. It was Nixon's blatant misconduct that started the whole 'right to know' trend. JFK had prostitutes brought into the White House while his wife was there. FDR had a long time girlfriend while he was in office. And lord knows what else.

In Europe, men are not castigated for having mistresses, it is almost expected. They have a more open view of sexuality.

Answer 6

You obviously don't know much about other powerful countries... examples from current or recent times are Russia = Putin, probably behind the murder of Litvinenko in London by radiation poisoning, and also an invading despot (Chechnya), France = Chirac, only escaping serious fraud charges due to Presidential immunity, China = imprisonment/death for anyone who disagrees with the government...

Answer 7

The United States of America is in a period of decline .
We have had poor leadership in the White House for
decades .Jimmy Carter and John F. Kennedy are
exceptions to the poor leadership .Corporate America
buys politicians such as George W. Bush .Corporate
interests would rather have people in the White House and
in Congress with no morals .Richard Nixon ,Bill Clinton ,
and George W. Bush are the three people that you are
referring to .Have you noticed the parallels between
Imperial Rome and the United States ?Our troops are all
over the world ,but the defense of our own country is of
little importance to Emperor George W. Bush .

Answer 8

Its a little publized fact that President Wm McKinley actually invaded the Phillipines and overthrew the Spanish government there. By Peace Treaty Spain gave the country to the US., but Philipinos objected and America spent years and the lives of 4000 American soldiers trying to put down the native insurgents.
Many Americans objected to our presence there among whom was Mark Twain who wrote:

“There is the case of the Philippines. I have tried hard, and yet I cannot for the life of me comprehend how we got into that mess. Perhaps we could not have avoided it — perhaps it was inevitable that we should come to be fighting the natives of those islands — but I cannot understand it, and have never been able to get at the bottom of the origin of our antagonism to the natives. I thought we should act as their protector — not try to get them under our heel. We were to relieve them from Spanish tyranny to enable them to set up a government of their own, and we were to stand by and see that it got a fair trial. It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority of the Filipinos, a government according to Filipino ideas. That would have been a worthy mission for the United States. But now — why, we have got into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation.”

Sound familar?

On the positive side, Bill Clinton did give America 8 years of peace & prosperity (he actually raised american industry out of domination by Japan). He was also instrumental in ending decades of religious terrorism in Ireland and was universally admired around the world --- if not by jealous Republicans.

Answer 9

We have an very active media in the US, and they are constantly looking to dig up dirt on our politicians. In other countries, the media is controlled by the state. In other countries, they don't care if their leader has affairs or enriches himself while in office. As long as the leader is competent and moves the country forward, he gets the support of the people.

In the US, we worry to much about our politicians private lives. I don't care if they have sex with interns or occasionally visit a prostitute. Just keep doing a good job, and don't betray your country. It's a shame that we keep electing uptight guys like W. Bush and Nixon who were faithful to their wives, but they screwed the public.

Answer 10

Do you read the news? It happens everywhere. People are humans. They have quirks and odd behaviors. Unfortunately, if you are a politician, you are not allowed to have a private life. The problem is not with the presidency, it is with people in general. Persionally, I don't care what you do if you are a capable leader. But we do not seem to have many left