Define political success

[discreetgent]

How do you define political success? It is stating the obvious that many on this board loathe President Obama's policies, and in fairness many loathed President Bush's (George W) policies.

Looking at the last 2 years CHIPS, Stimulus Package, Healthcare, Food Safety, Don't ask don't tell, START treaty, Tax Cut extension have all passed Congress.

During Bush II - tax cuts, the initial foray into Afghanistan, Iraq, increased security .

I understand that people feel strongly pro and con on all of these, but looking from the outside how would you define political success? Does it depend on getting things through COngress? Does it depend solely on the long term effect? Combination of both?

[pjorourke]

Political success is winning the middle.

[I B Hankering]

George Washington

[charlestudor2005]

I don't think political success can be defined in the moment, but must be seen through the lens of history.

For instance, Harry Truman was hated while in office, but now is adored. Likewise, if JFK had not been assassinated, it is doubtful his civil rights agenda would have passed Congress. And, he may not have been re-elected. That's just near history.

Success in politics becomes clearer the farther away you are. And it also depends on what you mean by "success." For instance the House of Borgia was extremely successful. But some of the tactics they used were absolutely abhorrent, and would have been roundly condemned by London.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Success in politics becomes clearer the farther away you are. And it also depends on what you mean by "success." For instance the House of Borgia was extremely successful. But some of the tactics they used were absolutely abhorrent, and would have been roundly condemned by London.

*preceded by ornate censer swinging rhythmically left to right to left . . . and chanting*

Wicked, greedy, full of sin!
Borgia Popes, the worst that’s been.

Come on now Charles, what’s wrong with a little incest spiced with poison.

[charlestudor2005]

@IBH

I gotta be careful about what I discuss on this board. The recent thread on "free speech" shows that some members get outraged by certain subjects.

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Political success is winning the middle.

That's certainly electoral success! Which is political.

I would define governmental success as keeping the middle engaged & in support of actions towards a definable end.

NOW...I've got to figure out if I set the bar too high....or too low....

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Success in politics becomes clearer the farther away you are. And it also depends on what you mean by "success." For instance the House of Borgia was extremely successful. But some of the tactics they used were absolutely abhorrent, and would have been roundly condemned by London.

“The end justifies the means”


— The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli

“This gives rise to an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the opposite. The answer is that one would like to be both, but since it is difficult to combine the two it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to make way. For generally speaking, one can say the following about men: they are ungrateful, inconsistent, feigners and dissimulators, avoiders of danger, eager for gain, and whilst it profits them they are all yours. They will offer you their blood, their property, their life and their offspring when your need for them is remote. But when your needs are pressing, they turn away. The prince who depends entirely on their words perishes when he finds he has not taken any other precautions. This is because friendships purchased with money and not by greatness and nobility of spirit are paid for, but not collected, and when you need them they cannot be used. Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you.”

— The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I gotta be careful about what I discuss on this board. The recent thread on "free speech" shows that some members get outraged by certain subjects.

IKR

[Guest050715-1]

It’s not just getting elected that’s for sure. If that were the case, Obama would be sucessful, and I would not categorize Obama as such. All his initiatives are stalled by the courts or the new, back lash congress.

I think it has to do with legacy: Clinton style – successful with the people or W style – successful with the establishment. For instance, they just brought Clinton out, dusted him off, and put him back at the presidential podium to pimp Obamacare. That’s political success when you are the go to guy to smooth things over or to push an unpopular or never before heard of agenda. W, as much as I detest him and his presidency, I would say is politically successful. Political prisoners are still at GitMo, the war is still on and his tax cuts are left, for the most part, still standing despite Obama’s efforts. I’m not saying I agree with that yahoo, but he is politically successful.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

How do you define political success?

I guess if you're talking about "politcal success" it is kind of like winning a popularity contest. I think Clinton did that fairly well...and as PJ said, winning the middle goes a long way to measuring that.

But "political success" should not be confused with leadership. They are not in the same spectrum.

[TexTushHog]

Passing legislation that lasts. Plain and simple. The second measure, at least at the national level, is changing the Courts for the good (at least from your perspective). The most successful Presidents in the 20th Century have been the two Roosevelts and LBJ by those standards, and I think that's a fairly accurate assessment.