Autocrat vs Institutionalist

[Dan Z]

Putting right and left aside for the moment (if that is even possible ) - the 2024 presidential election seems to be between a leader with Autocratic tendencies and a leader with Institutionalist tendencies. (BTW - I believe there are autocrats and institutionalists across the political spectrum).

For the sake of discussion, let me define the terms for this discussion:

• 1) Autocrat - A leader who consolidates and centralizes the wielding of power, working from a foundational distrust of the broader institutions around him.
  
  2) Institutionalist - A leader who uses existing institutional structures to exercise power, working from a foundational trust in the institutions around him.

I'd like the discussion not to rehash the merits (or demerits) of either candidate, or the value of liberalism vs conservatism, but to focus on Autocracy vs Institutionalism, whether these classifications adequately describe the candidates, whether the terms are helpful or unhelpful in understanding the present situation, and what governance approach might be best in the current context.

Go...!

[Josh]

Can we have a fourth option for “I disagree with your assumptions that one candidate is institutionalist and one is authoritarian”?

[Ken]

I would start with the premise that we have an institutional form of government, not an autocratic form of government.

That is what the Constitution is all about. The founding fathers already decided this almost 250 years ago. And I think they got it right. Much of purpose of the Constitution in the first place is to reign in or limit autocratic tendencies in our leaders.

I also don't necessarily agree with the premise of the question. I think both parties have both institutionalist and autocratic tendencies but in different areas. Republicans are more autocratic in some areas, Democrats are more autocratic in other areas.

[Dan Z]

Can we have a fourth option for “I disagree with your assumptions that one candidate is institutionalist and one is authoritarian”?

The poll asks "What is needed" - you are free to choose option 3 and make the case for something else if you wish.

I would only add that seldom does anyone exhibit a pure leadership style - that's why I chose the terms "institutionalist tendencies" and "autocratic tendencies."

I think there is a fairly clear case for Trump's Autocratic tendencies, and Biden's Institutionalist tendencies - and I'll share why as time allows for those who honestly don't see it - but please feel free to explain why you disagree with my assumptions.

[ohio jones]

Much of purpose of the Constitution in the first place is to reign in or limit autocratic tendencies in our leaders.

The word "reign" itself exhibits autocratic tendencies. If limiting them is the goal, it might be better to rein them in.

[barnhart]

Way back in the 90's I felt the political parties (institutions) were too strong, slow and unresponsive, stifling the voice of the people, so I was encouraged by trends like direct fund raising and proportional delegate allocation. Now that I have a little taste of populism, I feel some nostalgia for the good ole days of party discipline. So, I guess my eye is turned toward Institutionalism.

[Dan Z]

Much of purpose of the Constitution in the first place is to reign in or limit autocratic tendencies in our leaders.

The word "reign" itself exhibits autocratic tendencies. If limiting them is the goal, it might be better to rein them in.

It is of course a balance - leaders who are too hemmed in by bureaucracy are rendered ineffective, but leaders who are too unfettered can be dangerous if their motives and self-regulation are not honorable.

[Ken]

Much of purpose of the Constitution in the first place is to reign in or limit autocratic tendencies in our leaders.

The word "reign" itself exhibits autocratic tendencies. If limiting them is the goal, it might be better to rein them in.

I just put that there so you would have something to do!

[Ken]

Much of purpose of the Constitution in the first place is to reign in or limit autocratic tendencies in our leaders.

The word "reign" itself exhibits autocratic tendencies. If limiting them is the goal, it might be better to rein them in.

It is of course a balance - leaders who are too hemmed in by bureaucracy are rendered ineffective, but leaders who are too unfettered can be dangerous if their motives and self-regulation are not honorable.

One can also look at it differently and see that as a positive.

What our system of government really needs is a lot of consensus to move forward with big new legislation or policies. In shorthand, we need 218/60/1/5

218 House votes
60 Senate votes
1 Presidential signature
5 votes on the Supreme Court.

That isn't so much bureaucracy as it is intentional "checks and balances" that are built into our Constitution by design. Without broad consensus no president or Congress can get much done. Our system is designed such that we need broad consensus before we leap forward with big new policies. That is unlike many other countries where an incoming president or prime minister can make huge changes in policy on their own.

I see it as a good thing that whoever wins (Biden or Trump) will need lots of consensus to move forward with any area of policy.

That is also why you should take with a grain of salt much of what candidates say in their campaign speeches and platforms. For example, Trump talks about mobilizing the national guard to round up, detain, and deport millions of immigrants. Whether or not you agree with this policy, you should ask whether he actually has the consensus to accomplish this. Does he have the 218/60/1/5? We know he has the 1. but does he have the 218 and 60? Those are required to provide the funding. And does he have the 5? Those are required to approve the legality and constitutionality of such an action. If he doesn't realistically have 218/60/1/5 then it is just a bunch of hot air.

[Ernie]

I would like to see a government that is run by people with good character and real wisdom. Whatever system achieves this is the one that I am for.