America’s Leadership Problem 

I want to start with a big thanks, as usual, to everyone who thanks and supports my work. A couple notes: Some have noted that I didn't offer any solutions here. I didn't see that being appropriate. I really only studied and thought about presenting the problem. Solutions are difficult, and I think should be given similar time and consideration. I've seen a lot of people offer their own, and I'm personally grateful to see it and am energized by it. If that's you, thanks. Lastly, I've seen a number of commenters here that wanted to see a greater emphasis on the role of money in politics, with some even saying it's the key to the whole problem (meaning this video can essentially be disregarded). I do think it's an important subject worth discussing, especially depending on the president, but you can take it away as a factor and the major problems presented here still remain. There's still a falling trend in support for the office, and still a problem of attracting the best and brightest of Americans to the job. Perhaps most importantly, the performance issue still remains. Presidents still wouldn't be able to do what they tell voters they'll be able to do (because of institutional blocks and the fundamental design of the role). From my research the influence of money in politics is important, but it plays a far greater role in the problems Congress faces. I've covered that in some detail in an older video 'Why Is The Government So Wasteful?' If you wanted to cover its role shaping presidential behavior you'd have to do it on a case-by-case basis for each president (making the - I think - safe assumption that literally all presidents since Eisenhower haven't been fully corrupted by the influence of special interest money). - Ryan

I think a universal problem has always been that those who actually can and should do politics, either don't want to do it, or are not given the chance.

Remember how everyone in high school used to vote for Student Council President and we all pretended the person would make a difference, but really we knew the Principal and Staff were still in charge? That’s what American politics is like. We know the figurehead doesn’t matter, when the establishment around him stays the same.

I was a small town mayor (population ~12,000) from 2013 to 2021 in a collar county in greater Chicagoland. I was a full time scientist that worked for a Fortune 500 engineering firm and a part time mayor. I was paid about ~$2500/year to serve as mayor, so it was a very minor part of my total compensation. It was a whole lot of work and I tried to be a good mayor, and voluntarily stepped down from my position after I had achieved all of my primary goals. I found that most people were happy with the village government - except for a handful of loud troublemakers that I could count on one hand, some of whom served with me as elected members of the board. In the end I served and took direction from the vast majority of those that were happy. I listened to but was not obligated to obey the few troublemakers. With a few exceptions, I have great respect for anyone who aspires to political office. It is a noble calling. And it is a hard job if you do it correctly.

Dude uploaded 1 day before the most embarrasing presidental debate in US history.

2008: Hope and change! Yes we can! 2024: No matter who wins, we lose! Which candidate will fuck us the least?

We should not forget about American media as well. They're part of the problem too.

It seems the "best" people in America don't want to get into politics, while the less qualified people make a living (even get rich) in politics.

This might be the best-timed release of a RU-vid video of all time

The people with no desire for power or politics are the ones that should be in office. The ones we get are those who want to be there.

Unfortunately the skill set it takes to get elected is completely different than the one it takes to govern effectively

we lamenting the status of social cohesion wit this one 🗣

What competent person would seek exhausting, vilified impotence?

Absolutely everyone in America needs to watch this.

Take money and corporate interests out of politics. Problem solved.

The best of us are the too silent. Meanwhile the lousiest are the loudest.

"Once you've given up your independence you never get it back and one shouldn't underestimate what that does to people" That is applicable to so much more than just the Presidency.

What I like about Ryan is that he seems to be one of the very few truly non-partisan people commenting on politics and public life.

It started in 1975 when the supreme court let corporate money into politics. It has been all downhill from there

Their jobs are so hard that they come out multi-millionaires after only four years. While also only making 250k which never ads up 😒.

I have students who say they are more okay with a dictatorship from the right to restore the traditional household; and other students who -- while not saying it explicitly -- seem to expect that their colleagues from that camp will just quietly disappear while they campaign and shame their way through the march of progress. This video clarifies a lot of this divide and it makes me appreciate the research you put into these videos.

THIS is RU-vid!

It is not a lack of good leaders, it is the lack of having the choice to choose good leaders

Lobbying should be illegal.

It takes a certain type of psychopath to want to control and tell others how to live

Another interesting effect of this is what it does to other countries that are influenced by American culture. Here in Australia the Prime Minister doesn't have anything close to executive power but because Aussies are so plugged into American news, they end up voting based on the same types of promises that US presidents make (though admittedly at a smaller scale)

The Coming Caesars by Amaury de Riencourt is a good book on this. Basically shows the parallels between the growth of America to that of the Roman Republic and ultimately into the Roman Empire. That since WW2, the executive branch has become more powerful and more conditioned towards autocratic tendencies until eventually the people desire it due to lack of belief in the old institutions.

They get richer and we get poorer. They’re mostly all talk. They tax tax tax and things like homelessness only get worse. 😢

Robert Chapman's analysis of America's leadership problem resonates with Oswald Spengler's seminal work, "The Decline of the West." Spengler's cyclical theory of civilizations suggests that cultures, like organisms, have a natural lifespan: they are born, mature, decline, and eventually die. Spengler argued that Western civilization, having reached its peak, was entering a period of irreversible decline, characterized by decadence, cultural exhaustion, and the rise of Caesarism-a form of autocratic rule led by charismatic figures who promised to restore order and stability. Chapman's observations about the increasing centralization of power in the American presidency, the growing political polarization, and the unrealistic expectations placed on the president can be interpreted through Spengler's lens as symptoms of this broader civilizational decline. The expansion of presidential power, driven by crises and the desire for solid leadership, mirrors Spengler's concept of Caesarism. The polarization of politics reflects the fragmentation and internal conflict that Spengler saw as characteristic of a declining civilization. The disillusionment with the presidency and the yearning for a saviour figure resonates with Spengler's notion of cultural exhaustion and the search for a new source of authority. While Spengler's thesis is not without its critics, his ideas offer a thought-provoking framework for understanding American leadership's challenges and the broader trajectory of Western civilization. Whether or not one agrees with Spengler's deterministic view of history, his work serves as a reminder that even the most influential civilizations are not immune to the forces of decline and decay.

Last time I was this early, America still trusted their government 🇺🇸😂😁🙂🙃😭

One thing I read recently that I thought was interesting was an article in the Harvard Business Review from 2002 in which the authors researched leaders in their 60s and 70s and leaders in their 30s and 40s (remember this was 20 years ago). They found that the older leaders had role models like FDR, Eisenhauer, JFK, DiMaggio, or other celebrity leaders, while the younger leaders were much more likely to identify coaches from their youth, parents, family members, community leaders, pastors, etc.... The article was not specifically about that, so there was really just two sentences about it... but it really got me thinking about what that could mean.

European here. The desire of the American people for a dictator for POTUS doesn’t scare me nearly as much as the desire of the American people for a messiah for POTUS.

Another problem is that there has been a shift from insider Presidents to outsider Presidents. However, outsider Presidents struggle to get anything done, because they lack any personal connections with those in office.

Why? Example. The average senate candidate needs to raise 45k a day, 365 days a year, for 6 years straight in order to have the funds necessary to compete in just one race. Considering the average American can’t afford the disposable income necessary to donate anything remotely close to 10k a year (or more), it becomes blatantly obvious who the winning candidate is going to serve. The same is true for any of the other major (and a great many of the minor) political position races across the country. It’s not that we can’t have good leaders, the money players among us don’t want that. They want corporate serving yes men. With rare exception, the only times we get what we want from government is if and when those desires were already what money wanted in the first place.

My undergrad poli-sci prof taught a senior level class called "the promise and problem of US democracy" and focused specifically on this video's topic. general public needs more education on it, 100%

I appreciate your calm demeanor. Most youtubers nowadays tend to shout into the mic the entire video

Few things will interrupt my day more than a Ryan Chapman video!!!!

The presidency was such an inspiration growing up, both for the country and personally. The romanticized version of a president in the West Wing and the conniving Machiavellian work in House of Cards show the extremes of what the office is viewed as now. Nominally what we want the president to be and what we generally see the president as. Either someone who is working actively for the American people or serving themselves for the arbitrary goal of power. Such high expectations are never met, and as we perceive the president as failing we have higher expectations for the next one in order to fix the past mistakes too. It’s a cycle that seems to be unbreakable. Insiders perpetuate the system while outsiders either attempt to change the system without having the power or knowledge to get to the core problems of our democracy, or they use the chaos for their self gratification. And yet, democracy is the only known system of government that prevents the concentration of power to a small group of people. The Constitution was designed to ensure the distribution of state and federal power. But its inability to change and the abuse of those in power to maintain the status quo at the expense of a vast majority of Americans has disastrously eroded public confidence in our democracy. This was definitely a ramble, but this cycle of domestic cynicism is destroying our country from within. And the solution is optimism and actively working the make the system work for all of us. And that’s easier said than done, but again belief and being optimistic is what’s needed. The government will not change if people who still believe in its capacity to actually serve the public decide not to enter politics, even though it’s completely understandable. Thanks to whoever read this all the way!

Considering the amount of vitriol there has been in American Politics since the 70's, its hardly surprising some of the best don't get into US politics. Most candidates are compromise candidates until necessity pushes forward someone outstanding.

It's not in decline. It's operating exactly as intended: to enrich a small group of super-rich billionaires and corporations. Blackrock, Vanguard, Boeing, Lockheed M, etc...

The idea that people should even care that much about who the president is has been a big problem for the country.

My diagnosis is that technology has changed how the election process works. Ever since FDR and the radio, presidential candidates have relied on a certain degree of charisma to sway elections. No longer were people just voting on the issues. With the coming of TV and the Internet, this increased the need to wear makeup, show off, and make grand speeches. Voting for a politician now is like voting for American Idol, personality and entertainment is at the center of the election. Populism is growing, because we’re voting for cult leaders not representatives.

I said this in the previous video yesterday and I will say it again with this reupload. You are the only one I know who can talk politics without being political. And I wish I can show every American this video.

You don’t post videos that often but when you do, it’s an almost certain masterclass. Thanks for your work and please keep it up!

I absolutely love this channel. Just a sober, thorough, non-hysterical, literate take on events and historical topics. I'm telling all of my late night YT surfers about it.

Excellent video. This phenomenon trickles all the way down to even mayors, county and city commissioners, etc. There is an increasing (and unfair) expectation of what people in these roles are able to accomplish single-handedly. And, I agree, though, that some of this burden is of their own making at times.

Iam a Kenyan and i cant be happier for this video today

Excellent analysis

I think it mostly has to do with the degree of gatekeeping in running for office. Say what you will about RFK Jr. or even Pierre before him in Bush Senior’s bid for reelection, but he is a testament to how difficult it is to run for president without support from a given party. What really shocked me was the cognitive dissonance in the law around political parties. As the system is now, the Republicans and Democrats are integral to our legislature, a part of the government, public organizations, however, under the law they are treated as private companies. In the case of Bernie Sanders and RFK Jr’s attempts at the Democratic Nomination, the party arbitrarily rigged the primary against them. Votes for either candidate in the primary weren’t counted if said candidate had held events ( ralleys, etc.) in that state. This blatant rigging of internal party elections is allowed as political parties are supposed to be private entities separated from the government, this is not the case, the Republican and Democrat parties are the government, and they uphold that monopoly through policies that disadvantage independent and third party candidates. Each state has vastly different requirements to appear on the ballot, ranging from a few thousand signatures to hundreds of thousands. Why don’t we lessen the boundaries to run for office, and let candidates compete amongst themselves until we find the best candidates among them? Although we decide who will become president, we do not choose our options. In much more trivial matters we have hundreds of times more options to choose from. Nobody struggles with deciding a brand of cereal despite there usually being a dozen different choices. Should it really take millions of votes to merely get on the ballot as an alternative to political party nominees that don’t need any?

Thank you, Ryan. This is a vital issue, particularly after the recent Trump/Biden debate.

“With leaders like this how can you not get high”. Access is severely limited. Educated truly informed citizens electorate is required along with checks and balances to keep their selected voted in leaders, for a purer democracy and crucial unfettered election process are key. The vulnerability of our Commander n Chief” factor ever increasing Id not considered. It’s a complex world where anything can happen anytime.? This was an eye opener thank you.

this should be broadcast across all local news channels and promoted across social media! People have forgotten!

This has got to be the most thought provoking video in your channel. I don't live in the USA, but I can extrapolate all of what you exposed here on the leaders of my country. I don't think it's just a problem in the USA, this is a worldwide problem. Regardless of you what views you express and defend, what you are making here, is a beacon of thought.

The solution appears to be small government, not as a moral issue but as a practical limit of actual control.

As a non-American who has always looked up to America and Americans, thanks for making a balanced video and ending it on an optimistic note. I truly wish the best for a nation and a people that I've always looked up to.

Beautiful. Great research. Great presentation. Great accuracy. Thank You. Thank you for changing my mind about a few things I misunderstood. And for advancing my knowledge to a better understanding.

Your videos are uniquely unbiased yet pull no punches. Thank you.

I want freakbob in office NOW

This should be required media for all Americans

[<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1044">17:24</a>] Just like the press didn't report on FDR's polio or JFK's affairs, today the press doesn't report on President Biden's cognitive decline and incapacitation, but not out of respect for the office but to maintain a political advantage for the Democrat party and to avoid providing the Republican party, especially Donald Trump, with any advantage. That is the reality of the American press in the post-2020 political environment.

特别喜欢您频道！等了好久啊 Love your channel, been waiting for the new video 👍

Thank you! Your channel is worth subscribing to. Please do a comparative analysis of various contemporary approaches of governance around the world.

When people like Trump, Biden, RFK Jr., and AOC end up calling the shots, you know something is wrong with America.

Commenting for the algorithm to push the video! A very important video!

This was fantastic Ryan.

Thanks and glad you wrote about this topic. Yes, where are the so called smart folks who can be a good president, who do not lie but do the right thing for the people. Our politicians are doing well but not the people, so many promises but nothing concrete. It is very sad to see the state of this country. I often tell my husband I don’t want to live here any more. I do volunteer work for folks that don’t speak English and that upsets me a lot. Everyone that comes here should be made to speak the language, learn the culture and be an asset to this nation. Instead too many folks are a drain to the system. Some who are US citizens don’t even bother to vote or participate in the state or federal elections. A country should be run like a business. Look at our current politicians? They scare me more than the thugs! Anyway, glad there are concerned folks like you who write these articles and I will be forwarding to some of my friends who are worried about this nation. Keep writing and it is much appreciated.

The same thing is happening in the Philippines.

My question is: Why did we let Presidents get so much power over the public? The whole concept of the presidency was to be limited. But at some point presidents tried to make promises they weren't supposed to make (like FDR, JFK etc.).

I do think our ever increasing involvement with and pressure put on politicians certainly doesn't help make anything better. To think how many actually think the economy's state is a result of the presidency too is pretty nuts.

Mr. Chapman --- I really enjoyed your perspective 👍. I subscribed

The problem is public choice theory. Also, not enough average people pay attention to politics. Therefore, Politicians' good actions go unrecognized. Only interest group lobbyists pay attention.

"The people we want as leaders do not want to be leaders". -Elon Musk

Small government is the best answer. It’s time we make our local governments accountable, not the federal government.

Yesterday didn't happen 😅

They get to fail and then disappear with all the money they stole along the way, and nothing is done about it

That is an objective view of the problem. That you did NOT use all one party to show the good and the other party to show the bad is commendable. Well done! One HUGE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM left out: The Administrative state. ...which runs EVERYTHING these days. To discuss leadership without discussing its growth is a relevant and important omission.

Leadership is for losers

We get the leaders we deserve

I never understood why the nation is so concerned with the president when its the people in the senate that i believe actually matter more than the president but i didnt know the president was primarily for foreign affairs

They say that “diversity is our strength.” Well, we are almost into the 60th year of the immigration reform of 1965…

Who here from the debate?

The thing that you fail to address is that the president is not the ruling face of the country. It’s the donors and the massive corporations that that donate money to them

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." - Agent K

Politicians should study the US Army's Leadership Principles Manual and abide by the 10 (or 11) leadership principles.

What do you expect when the entire American political system is entrenched in political donations and being affiliated with rich corporations that have their own political agendas? The American political system is clearly the problem, not just the Presidency. You take the rhetoric of Obama for example: Pre-Presidency he was a genuine progressive with some very interesting ideas on how to help spread socialised welfare, healthcare and education across the US. However, there was a marked shift in tone once he took office because he was absolutely hamstrung by a system that made it nigh on impossible to do anything meaningful. I recall hearing a J Cole line where he said "they gave a brother the wheel but didn't tell him that the ship was sinking"... Like, that is in essence completely correct. The political donation and electoral college systems need a complete overhaul for America to ever have a President that can invoke genuine change... Sadly, American politics has become so insanely divided and partisan that neither party want to let go of a system that can prevent them from stopping the other from making meaningful changes to the country.

I'll repost: I think a healthier Congress would mean a healthier presidency and relationship to it. Congress getting unpopular happened a little before. Phillip Wallach's book was good on this.

I think part of the problem is that too many Americans look to the government to improve their lives which just in turn requires the government to get involved in the economy which in turn makes the economy less efficient and raises costs of goods and services. The reality is to improve our lives and the economy, the government should be as limited as possible and we should incentivize charities and individuals to provide for the needy.

This video was really well done. Great information and presentation.

I just discovered you man. Your content is priceless. Thank you so much.

The election system is main problem. This present system guarantee that only 2 main parties GOP or Dems will win. And both parties have no incentives to create breakthough policies. They just have to be the same with a little push each time. Because of the same policies they still different from the other one. People will always vote against the dislike one. Imagine If there are 3rd party with more interesting policy and values of any right or left they re not gonna be elected as majority because most people would fear that voting for 3rd or 4th parties will result in the win of another side. For example if there are more Left than Democrat or more right than GOP. People who use to vote for Dems might like the 3rd one more than Dems. However in the bollot in the present system they would vote for Dems in the calculative move that voting for newer parties will end up lost and GOP will win But if the election system is 1) allow you to vote more than 1 round, like the France "double majority" or 2) can specify by number proiritizing which party you want most and 2nd and 3rd in that case If your most preferable c andidate is lost your second candidate still count for ex. Australian style 3) Have a partylist and regional mp and % of party list vote determine %of mp in the house (German style) These would create more dynamic in policy making and get America out of the loop that result in 2 parties always win and they are not too different from each other as they tried to make to feel The old election system (Winner takes all, One majority vote, etc.) Inanycountries. Always result in favor of 2 big old parties and undermine change by the reson we mention earlier If America change the election system. We would see change and hope in US and also in this world

I appreciate this channel so much. He's subjective and simply but thoroughly explains the subject matter. Which proves his depth of research and understanding. No matter your political views, I believe you'll feel as though he is being honest with you and what he presents is true.

Solid content, really great job! Sound insights, unbiased information, educational, fantastic delivery in narration!!! New subscriber! 🏅

Man this guy is got it down to reality my narcissism just flew out the window. [THANKS FOR THE REALITY.]

That concentration of power around foreign policy is what allowed for an elite to develop and screw up domestic politics. Power should be decentralized across all aspects

You touched on the subject of Christian rights being stripped. I don’t think there should be any Christian rights in America. The term. “ Christian rights” has no meaning to me and the growing number of Americans. The founding fathers did not base the constitution in anyway on religion. This can most readily be seen in the treaty of Tripoli in 1797. It states that the United States is not a question nation. If you don’t believe me, Google it!

This was a fantastic video. Can’t wait for the next one.

Ryan you are a bright, intelligent and interesting presenter...thank you for another thoughtful piece.

this video fucking rules, this was so incredibly engaging and thought-provoking and informative, I would marry this video

Excellent video. I mostly agree save for some points of emphasis. Your point about presidents creating unrealistic expectations for themselves is one I hadn't heard/considered before. The problem is that we've seen a very sharp and very recent downward trend in quality of Presidents and congress. My variation in emphasis would look something like below: 1) Partisan Gerrymandering. While gerrymandering doesn't affect the President directly, it does affect the general political climate. The rise of computer-mapping software in the 2000 census cycle allowed hyperaccurate maps where politicians pick their voters, not vice versa. This is hollowing out the middle of our elected representatives, and they in turn affect the electorate, which in turn drives electorates to either love or hate Presidents. There's no middle. This happens because gerrymandered districts, even more subtly gerrymanders, often make for noncompetitive general elections. The only threat to an incumbent is to be 'primaried', a fate so common now that it has become a verb. This leads to incumbents governing more extreme to protect against this. 2) Primaries. You spoke to this to some degree, but I would argue it's worse even than you portray it. Partly, primaries combine maliciously with gerrymanders, but also they turn a quarter to a third of a President's term into 'campaign season'. Indeed, Bill Clinton's team claimed there was ONLY campaign season. Primaries weed out the most broadly acceptable candidates. We should move towards a ranked choice (or similar) system that can be resolved in a single election where the same population of voters can resolve the entire election (rather than 2-3 elections spread out over a year or more). This would also allow people who want to make protest votes to do so without creating a spoiler effect and should give rise to a more dynamic polity. Ranked choice would also allow younger politicians to run 'get to know me' campaigns and see how successful they are which would build support for the next cycle. Right now, only the top candidate advances to the general election, and in most primaries, young up-and-comers drop out before super tuesday. So they can never build a national profile the way people with longer times in the public eye can and have done. 3) The Imperial Presidency. You mentioned this, and I wholeheartedly agree. The Presidency has become far too powerful. Legislative power belongs with the legislature. Calling something a regulation or pointing to a vaguely written statute doesn't make it okay. Congress does not have the power to delegate it's legislative responsibilities. In order to depower the executive though, we need a better functioning congress, which is why the gerrymandering and primaries are so important to reform. I would go even a step further and argue that the Attorney General and DOJ should be split off into a separate structure, with the AG becoming an elected post with 4 year terms elected 2 years offset from the President. But that's far more radical a proposal. 4) Campaign finance. IMHO, the effect of money on elections is smaller than most people think, but because politicians BELIEVE it is large, the effect of money on POLICY-MAKING is huge. Campaign finance reforms over the years however have reduced the ability of parties to spend money. This sounds good, until you realize that it means special interests therefore replaced 'soft money'. That 'soft money' was mostly spent on challengers in general elections, creating more competition (albeit challengers still usually lost), is something people seemed to just overlook during the debate at the time. We should restore parties' ability to spend on elections so long as they are transparent about it. It's the lesser evil as it will dilute the direct power of special interests on specific policymakers. It won't go away, but it will dilute it. 5) Electoral College. Look, we'll never get agreement to end the electoral college entirely. It's too important to less populated states, and it really only comes into play in elections that are quite close. It's an eclectic tiebreaker. It only feels important because we've been having so many close elections lately. But the thing about the electoral college that is REALLY in need of reform, and unlike abolishing it altogether might actually be something that could pass, we should mandate that EC votes be allotted on a proportional basis. So Imagine a state with 10 EVs, the leading candidate wins 50.1% of the vote. Rather than getting 10 EVs, he gets 6. And so on until all EVs are allocated. Why? Because this means people in single-party dominated states MATTER now. If you're a blue in a red state or a red in a blue state, you could potentially help move your state down over a threshold to award one less (or one more in the reverse scenario) EV. This would mean extreme positions would be more punished. Pandering to JUST swing states would be punished. You'd really have to campaign to the whole country.

Earlier America was dream for outsiders Now its just a joke