Does America LIKE having authoritative presidents?

Think about it. Except for a couple of blips (Carter was a reaction to Nixon, and Clinton was just an exceptional politician), in the last 40 years, America has voted for a Republican president. And even though Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat, he was a pretty tough, no-nonsense guy. I find this odd because, when surveyed on just the issues, most Americans will choose more to the liberal side than the conservative side (as long as no party affiliation is attributed to the issue). And the more the person knows about any particular issue, the more they are likely to side with the liberals.

So why does America keep electing Republicans? It's obvious that issues do not mean much when electing a president. Can it be that we just feel more comfortable with a leader who acts tough. Does America actually want a president who is not compassionate? Are there any Democratic candidates who have an authoritative personality?

I've always thought that the best Democratic candidate would be someone who could exude hope the way Kennedy did, but maybe we need someone who comes across like a bulldog (the only Democrat who I can think of who fits that personality is Jack Murtha, but I know he's not running).

Thoughts?

and their emotions are easily swayed to vote for authoritarians. "Let him be in charge, so I dont have to think and can spend my time watching American Idol."

but what they fail to realize is that personality trait almost exclusively leads to abuse of power...a strong leader AND a team player is almost impossible to find.

People are also conditioned to trust authority and not ask too many questions, and to not think critically. Repugs exploit fear of change to their advantage.

If you mean "the American people,' then it is a meaningless question since "the American people" have virtually no role in choosing thier presidents

If, on the other hand, you mean the small group of plutocrats who own everything, then yes, they want us to be docile and accepting of authority. Virtually any othe nation on earth would have experienced violent mass insurrection sometime during the last six years, but not "America."

one of the main phrases used in defending her was "At least she's a strong leader!"

Unfortunately, all countries sometimes fall for the Big Tough Leader figure, which generally leads at worst to a dictatorship, and at best to the type of government that goes for the quickest and most simplistic, rather than wisest, solutions to problems.

I personally appreciate a president who knows what he's talking about. But i wont' tolerate a president telling me that his way is the only way.

authoritative president, but end up with an authoritarian one. But maybe that's what we want. Maybe we want someone rules with a fascist iron hand. I think it's the John Wayne, "my-daddy-can-whip-your-daddy" mentality.

both for the people within the country and also for the world stage. But that doesn't have to mean a dictator style presidency, they can be strong and right like Clinton says. And unlike Bush they can listen to what smart people say about various issues and then make a good decision.

for president we prefer puppets who say nothing of consequence.

the most relentlessly propagandized populace in history.

but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king."

Sideshow Bob

before Eisenhower in the persons of Roosevelt and Truman. Eisenhower got elected because he promised to end the Korean war. After he served two terms the country elected more Democrats, Kennedy and Johnson before Nixon took office. I think that the Republicans we have had since Nixon were cheating on elections back then. We just weren't savvy about it then like we are now thanks to internet access.

strong Democrats and so skewed the outcome.

Wasnt it tweety who said a few weeks ago regarding Guiliani that he liked a little fascism because it cleaned up New York. We like to be told what to do. We are not a land of "thinkers"

a small-minded psychotic drug-addled chicken-hawk simpleton, with the best Ivy League degree Daddy could buy and a fake Texas accent. I often ask myself how did we get here?

Because "we didn't want to put the nation through that."

What utter bullshit. The ruling mafia didn't want to face the music.

Rinse and repeat.

That's why all these Iran/Contra felons are again in government.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

To decide the fate of millions requires a big ego and the self-justification of being able to make decisions "for others" instead of allowing them to decide for themselves. The degree of authoritarianism matters though. The Democratic Party is not clean in this matter as well, unless you're willing to overlook Woodrow Wilson's persecution of socialists and anti-war activists or FDR's imprisoning of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians.

To enact change through government is necessarily more authoritarian than simply writing books and pamphlets to enact change and organizing people directly for self-governance, but I'm not saying all changes enacted through government are bad. I use authoritarian less as a pejorative term than as a descriptive term. There is a difference in degrees between, say, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush.