Choosing Wrong
Before the 2008/9 election Toffler was asked, during an interview, which candidate he was going to vote for. He answered that he and Heidi [Toffler] would vote for Obama because “[paraphrasing] it was important to show to the world US can elect a black president”.
That’s all. If you know his writings and read between the lines however, what he meant was this: the election of Bam is good PR but other than that, whichever fool gets the top job does not matter. … My senpai is much less forgiving on the political class than I. Personally I still think there is a shred of hope left these people yet (but my hopes, especially for US, is dwindling by the day).
The record somewhat confirms the cynical view, not mine: it can be argued, the US electorate did not, could not elect the “right guy” for decades.
IMO things really started going wrong with Kennedy’s election. It’s no secret that JFK (an ESFP -gets bored easily, acts tactically, wants to look “brave”-) was elected due to TV effect. His opponent Nixon (an INTJ -his exact mirror image by the way-) kept sweating profusely during the TV debate (what’s with this sweating and INTJs?) generally looked shady, henceforth suffered the losses at the ballot box. But, was JFK truly the better candidate? As Prez Kennedy escalated the war in Vietnam, Nixon ended it. JFK played a dangerous game of chicken during missile crisis [1], Nixon engaged China. JFK’s “extracurricular” activities got him into trouble, Nixon was sufficiently boring.
Nixon did finally got the top job, but maybe, he should’ve gotten there earlier (same for Reagan) - JFK years in hinsight look like a waste of time.
So the electorate has not been able to choose. Why? Mass communication undid mass representation. Second wave started to eat its own tail.. Bad. Very bad.
Approaching near history, say 2000. Another fuck-up: If continuing Clinton years was important, shouldnt his VP be elected? While the Iraq War was all the rage, shouldnt someone with actual war experience be better to lead (Kerry)? And then McCain?
How about during and after the financial crisis, would it be better if someone with finance experience to lead the country (Mitt)? Not to mention at the time there was a healthcare debate, and the man had experience setting up a healthcare system, while now, Obamacare is largely seen to be running off the cliff.
Is the circus that is the US mass election system truly able to deliver results?
Here is another question: If Abraham Friggin Lincoln ran for President today, would he be elected?
Could he?
[1] USSR was actually trying to “balance” the situation - since US already had similar missiles deployed in Turkey, right in Russia’s doorstep. The crisis was “solved” with US promising it would pull out the TR based missiles six months later. So nobody truly won, the US president looked “good on TV” while USSR had the TR missiles pulled out. The game of chicken was a waste of time. But there was lots of unnecessary tension, doomsday scenarios, which IMO was the real reason behind JFK’s assasination by a lone gunman who was the equivalent of a Breivik or McVeigh of his day.