In a funny way that’s sort of what makes the Trump phenomena interesting. The guy is a complete Karnt but lets just say, imagine of you will, he were to make an effective President or leader. That he brought economic prosperity to all Americans. Would you be happy with a leader like that as long as he/she was effective?
Never going to happen, unless he passes a law determining that non whites are no longer American. Which he’s having a bit of a crack at right now. If you want to follow your titillating little hypothesis a bit further what does prosperity via Trump for the USA mean for the rest of the world in this scenario? Because you need to follow it through to get any serious discussion going.
I don’t see that he can be effective as his personality is so devisive, He insults, belittles and deflects so much that there is no focus on policy or governance. If you can’t foster confidence in your ability to govern, how can you be effective?
“He’s a bit weird and he picks on certain social groups/demograhics and blurs the lines of what’s legal/moral in our democracy, but the economy is pretty good right now, so I’ll ignore those other bits…” Now, where have I heard that before?
And it’s not like he says any of that stuff about me…
Now you are questioning the term “effective leader” because you potentially have a country that is economically prosperous but socially divided. That, to me, is the goal that he has in mind. As long as the USA is making a net profit he views himself as a success. He doesn’t care about social cohesion or the way wealth is distributed in the population.
But lets step away from Trump himself. More the issue, would you be happy with a leader who is not particularly a pleasant person but who effectively governs, both economically and socially?
You mean like Paul Keating?
Keating was hilarious, loved him.
I thought Paul Keating was great! Today he would be sacked and in jail because a lot of what he said was so non PC but he was great to watch in Question Time.
But having said that while he was combative he was fairly personable (remember his personal touch with the Queen?). In the end he lost an election for being too big picture, something sorely needed these days.
To be picky you asked members of a largely Australian website would we be fine with a karnt who destroys the fabric and the social contract of his nation but keeps them in the red. I asked what would the result be internationally of the policies he’s implemented to achieve this secular wealth. That’s my concern. If I’m American, hypothetically, well the answer is no because I’m an American who cares about the environment, animals, social justice, world peace and, sheeeyit, why not, other people too!
The problem with Keating was most of his barbs were too witty for the average punter to comprehend so he came off as confusing and arrogant. He was definitely the latter but arrogant and dumb seem to rub better with folks for some reason.
In the end a good leader is looking to improve the social and political fabric of the nation as well as economic prosperity. Sometimes the system we have depends on governments taking their partisan hats off and enacting laws and processes that are for the greater good of the democratic process. I believe, in general, Australian governments do that and most of the arguments are about 10% of the issues.
But I would happily have a person who was not well liked IF he/she was effective governor who espoused evidence based policy with the greater good in mind.
Many low educated people enjoy a ‘straight shooter’/‘tell it like it is’ type politician, because they know exactly where they stand on policy. There is no jargon.
Politics has always been about trying talk above the common person, to try and subvert the population from engaging in politics. Debates were deliberately elitist.
It’s a very effective ploy from Nationalists and now conservatives. It’s now their selling point. They’ll use ‘political correctness gone mad’ to protect themselves.
This prosperity you’re talking about is a fleeting bubble, which is already starting to dissolve into zero, and it’s now being shown it will take the poor severely backwards.
The only people doing well out of Trumps measures are the rich ( as was always the plan and going to be the case) who are now paying fk all Tax while the joint still builds on it’s Trillion plus of National Debt.
As would most of us. Not entirely a pipe dream you’d think, but in too many ways too late she cried. The fat lady that is. Not PC. PK? Well he likes a bit of opera no doubt.
Far from being a tosserr Kevin Rudd was a great Prime Minister, with great policies, many of which he managed to implement despite opposition from Murdoch and his own deputy PM. His main problem was that he was highly intelligent and knew it, and suffered fools very badly — rather like Keating in that. Neither of them licked any arses to get ahead, and that gains my respect.
The trouble is, in this bullshit system we call “democracy” morons have the same value as intelligent voters; in fact morons are more useful to our rightwing oligarchs, because they believe the lies they’re fed by the rightwing gutter press.
Rudd fell not because of the pink batts disaster (for which, despite the gutter press, he was not responsible), but because of Gillard’s greed for power. If anyone epitomised the mantra, “I want it all and I want it NOW,” she did. Scummo was Trumble’s Brutus; Gillard was Rudd’s. And greedy Gillard was well supported by Rudd’s nemesis, the execrable, treacherous fascist, Wayne Swan, who in a decent left-wing party would have been kicked out a decade or more ago, as soon as it was realised how much trouble he was capable of causing.
You could even claim, with some justification, that the present parlous position we find ourselves in, in Australian politics, is the direct result of Gillard and Swan’s machinations against Rudd, their incumbent leader and prime minister.
It’s so hard to keep this smile from my face,
Losing control, yeah, I’m all over the place,
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you…
No, he really was a jerk to a lot of people, and lost the country from an unprecedented approval rating because
a) he didn’t have the balls to call a double dissolution when he had the opportunity, and
b) he lost a public debate to Tony Abbott on health.
Well,… that was different.
Oh, and he really was not that intelligent.
His trip to Bundaberg showed that.
Rudd is one of the many politicians (most on the conservative side) for whom I’ll turn off the TV or radio or fast-forward or whatever. Quite a few journos - pretty well all Murdoch flunkies - too.
I’ve never agreed with perce on anything before. This is another we’re diametrically opposed on.