president and accounted for

I was thinking lately that maybe our democratic republic would work better if we had more political parties.

    Some critics of the current system say there's "really no difference between Democrats and Republicans, they just have two parties so that voters have the illusion of choice."

    That's both true and not true, I think.

    During my lifetime, in my experience, I've never seriously (or lightly) contemplated having more parties ("who are we, Italy?!") ... you know, John Anderson, in 1980, 

was -- interesting.  George Wallace in 1968 -- was -- scary.  1992's "Third Man" Ross Perot -- somewhat interesting and maybe just a little scary, though not in a bad way.  (And -- have I forgotten a Ralph Nader candidacy? -- maybe...).

    Two reasons why I think about more political parties:

1.  With current political parties, it appears to me that their candidates and officeholders are alternately tired, bought-up, and/or crazy.

2.  Discourse has devolved into:  "The other candidate sucks!!"  Newsflash, fellas:  That statement is not An Idea.  What we need are Good Ideas.  With five or six or seven different parties, there would be more opportunity for individual candidates to simply present, in a positive fashion, their platform -- their "Good Ideas" -- and basically ignore the other candidates completely.

    (Although -- caveat alert -- a candidate could just run around slamming all four or five or six of the other candidates with a slogan of, "They all suck!!" -- we saw our current president do that in the Republican primary last year.)

    You could potentially still have the problem of candidates simply and constantly vilifying each other, but with a bigger field of names, the bile would at least be diversified.  And an individual candidate could make the choice to carve out a more unique niche and actually think about the American people -- "What positive things can we do together?" instead of "Whom do we hate?"

     "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask (ahsk) what you can do for your country..."

___________________________
U.S. News and World Report had a piece titled "The 10 Worst Presidents" (Dec. 31, 2014), written by Andrew Soergel and Jay Tolson.

    They do it as a 10 to 1 countdown, with #1 being the Worst, I guess.

    Number 10 is a tie between two presidents in recent memory -- one more recent than the other.  I'm not going to reprint the two Number 10s here, so as not to offend supporters they may have in the Internet World Audience.  (I wouldn't want to be the first person to write something offensive on the Internet...)  Will review, beginning with #9.

    Looking at past presidents can give us perspective on present presidents.

----------- [excerpt, US News]
Number 9
Herbert Hoover
Born:  August 10, 1874
Died:  October 20, 1964
Presidential term:  March 4, 1929 - March 4, 1933
Vice President:  Charles Curtis
__________________
Hoover was known as a poor communicator who fueled trade wars and exacerbated the Depression.

    Herbert Hoover, the 31st president, and Richard Nixon, the 37th, share the ninth spot for entirely different kinds of failings.  and both had offsetting qualities and achievements that keep them off the 10-worst list of some major rankings.

    Hoover, elected on the eve of the Great Depression, came to the office with the skills of a consummate technocrat and manager.  The Iowa native and Stanford-educated engineer ran massive relief operations in Europe both during and after World War I.  He was commerce secretary under Harding and Calvin Coolidge.  Once the Depression set in, he lowered taxes and started public works projects to create jobs, but he steadfastly resisted outright relief.

    Hoover's rigid adherence to conservative principles may not have been his greatest problem.  A poor communicator, he came across as mean-spirited and uncaring.  The homeless dubbed their make-shift shanty towns Hoovervilles.

    Perhaps his single greatest policy blunder was supporting and signing into law a tariff act that fueled international trade wars and made the Depression even worse.  But style points alone would have cost him the election against FDR.

    For all his good qualities, it is fair to say that Hoover failed to rise to the greatest challenge of his time.
------------ [end, excerpt - U.S. News]

_________________________
When it comes to current events, please show us someone with good sense!

-30-