In a lengthy post over atBlog Maverick, Mark Cuban makes the legitimate point that candidates for the presidency frequently make promises without providing details of exactly how the promised feats will occur:
Not a single candidate provides details on how exactly they are going to accomplish anything.
…our country has the same problem we have every four years, our remaining candidates are politicians. They know how to spend other people’s money. They know how to assign responsibility to someone else. They know how to beg for other people’s money. They know how to campaign, schmooze and kiss babies. They have no earthly idea how to accomplish any of their promises.
His solution? He hope that
once [the Reps and Dems] have picked their winner[s], a wealthy individual will nominate them self to compete with the 2 parties and run for President.
No, not himself (although that might be entertaining at a minimum):
Are you listening Mayor Bloomberg ? For less than the cost of opening a tent pole movie, you can change the status quo . I’m not saying that I’m going to vote for you yet. As I said above, the devil is in the details. But, I’m betting that unlike the current choices, you recognize the difference between politics and results.
(Emphasis his).
Now, I find this interesting for two reasons. The first is that he decries “politicians” and yet he somehow thinks another politician is the solution (however one slices it, Bloomberg is a politician). The second, and this is even more curious, is that while he decries the notion that no one who proposes changes tells us about the details, the notion here seems to be that simply the insertion of a third competitor will magically transform the race and lead to a new kind of politics.((Granted, he says he would want to hear Bloomberg’s details. But what about the rather significant detail that a third party candidate would find himself (in this case) in a bit of trouble in dealing with a Congress controlled by the Democrats.)) That is, I have to say, as much pixie-dust politics (indeed, moreso) as anything currently being proffered by the mainline candidates.
I find all of this interesting because Cuban is falling into classic American fantasies about politics. We constantly decry the notion that politics is full of politicians, and wish for a politics devoid of such. But isn’t that like decrying how basketball is full of athletes? or that law firms are full of lawyers? The myth that someone can come from outside the political world and transform it is sheer fantasy–there are no “details” in such a wish.
The second classic fantasy is that a third party candidate can emerge from nowhere and both win a presidential election and then storm into Washington to transform how the place works. There is no evidence to support such a claim. And, indeed, what would Bloomberg bring to the table that would be so radically different than the existing pool?
Also: isn’t there something disturbing about the notion that a billionaire political messiah should emerge to save us all?
I will say this, Cuban does suggest, in a sideways fashion, a truth about what might help American politics: more competition is something to be valued. 1 However, under the prevailing rules of the game, we will always2 find ourselves with a two party dominant system with two major party candidates vying for the White House every four years. If Cuban wants a different set of choices, he needs to advocate constitutional/electoral reform, not fantastical billionaire messiahs.
Heck, imagine what the race would look like if we switched to a straight popular vote with a 50% requirement to win. This would almost certainly lead to more viable candidates competing to make it to the second round.
- Just like in sports and in the marketplace, more competition tends to result in better an overall system [↩]
- At least for the foreseeable future. [↩]
February 10th, 2024 at 10:57 am
There is one other point to be made about Cuban’s flawed thinking. He alleges:
This is just wrong. For both Democratic candidates, on each of the campaign websites and you can find relatively detailed policy proposals–certainly enough to make an informed choice about where that candidate stands on key issues.
Obama’s energy plan, for instance runs about 11 pages–while Hillary’s is 14.
It is true that McCain doesn’t really offer much in the way of detail. For the Democratic candidates, Cuban’s assertion is just false.
February 10th, 2024 at 12:03 pm
[...] Taylor has one of the best, most thoughtful political sites on the Internet. Be sure to also read THIS POST. [...]
February 10th, 2024 at 12:55 pm
I certainly appreciate the remarks about competition!
But I disagree that under current rules we must “always [for the foreseeable future] find ourselves with a two party dominant system with two major party candidates.”
The number of parties is much too low. That is not a normative point, but an empirical one. No other large democracy (Canada, India, UK, etc.) with plurality rule has just two parties represented. You have to go to very small countries (Jamaica perhaps the largest) to find a party system with only two meaningful parties.
No other presidential system has only two parties or two main candidates in its presidential races.
The electoral college certainly makes things hard for third parties, but not insurmountable (as competing agents who shape the race, whether or not they are perceived as likely winners). In fact, any third candidate with regional support actually gets aided by the electoral college’s unit rule, not suppressed by it (see Wallace, 1968).
At various times in the past, the US has had other parties in congress and playing a role in presidential elections, despite rules that have not changed much.
So one can’t go to the plurality rule for congress and the block plurality in an electoral college and come out with “two” as the expected number. It confounds electoral systems analysis that the number of parties in the USA is so low.
February 10th, 2024 at 12:58 pm
Ratoe: Detailed policy proposals on websites are nice. But that does not solve ‘the Cuban problem’ (as I interpret it). How are these potential presidents going to implement these plans? (Congress, courts, interest groups, and all that…)
February 10th, 2024 at 2:04 pm
How are these potential presidents going to implement these plans? (Congress, courts, interest groups, and all that…)
MSS: I haven’t looked at every single plan proposed by all of the candidates. But, for sake of argument, look at Obama’s energy plan. He argues for a cap and trade CO2 emissions programe. Caps will be auctioned, some revenue from the auctioning will be put into expanding existing renewable and efficiency programmes like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and DoE or USDA’s.
Implementation of this isn’t rocket science.
With regard to how a president would deal with COurts, COngress, etc…the candidates themselves don’t have to address that. We already have a document that does: The Constitution.