Why would anyone want the presidency? It's a puzzling question to us non-politicians. No matter who wins, half the people despise you. When you make a statement (any statement) twitter blows up with ridiculous hyperbolic praise on one side and vile recrimination on the other. If you try to make the compromises that are necessary to be the president for "all the people," you end up with just vile recrimination from both sides. The Muse is just thankful that there are at least some reasonable people willing to go through the crucible of an election campaign to take the job. And the folks who work on the campaign and (eventually) in the white house give up their families and their schedule to the unyielding and relentless pace of the executive branch - kudos to them! More to the point, and in spite of all the chicken-little journalist buck-buck-bucking about a possible Trump presidency, the president isn't all that powerful. Every president ages prematurely because he feels helpless in the face of intractable issues.
The Executive Branch
Don't get me wrong, the president does have influence. He appoints top bureaucrats, negotiates with foreign powers and since Wilson, he has set a policy agenda -- if he's collegial enough with congress. But that power is a chimera. Bureaucracies may be headed by presidential appointees, but they are staffed by folks who are just like the rest of us; cauldrons of different views and opinions. Sure he can dictate policy, but as anyone who works in business can tell you there is the way things are demanded from the top and then there is the way the machine actually operates. Buy-in is essential to turning an unwieldy bureaucracy. The attempted reforms of the FBI and CIA show how hard it is to reshape anything that large from the top. Foreign treaties are great and all, but congress has to ratify them and legislation is often required to implement them. Not to mention a bad treaty diminishes the president's power considerably (as the Iran treaty seems poised to do as we speak). As for a policy agenda, it typically requires parties willing to compromise on both sides of the isle - something increasingly unlikely in the current climate.
Yet it's worth remembering the genius of Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Jay et al. They intentionally structured a government with power devolved into three branches. A truly awful president who tried to implement wacky ideas would find himself impotent. I don't mean things like the recent executive action on climate policy or gun control. These items seem like over-reach to U.S. legislators jealous of their own power (as well they might be), but the distance between policy positions in the U.S. is actually quite narrow. Indeed, EU legislators are prone to wonder what the fuss is all about. Meanwhile, each branch needs the other to perform its function. Yes the president can and does make a difference. Depending on your point of view Obama's executive actions are a crass over-reach or the "about-time" actions of a man stymied by a do-nothing congress. Either way they are an example of how the branches stretch and reach to find their boundaries and accomplish their goals. The congress, wielding its own power, can find ways to block and hinder while the judiciary will rule on their constitutionality. The power dance is nothing new. It's true the executive branch has become more active and powerful since FDR. But it's also true that true policy action in any radical direction can be effectively arrested due to the structure of the U.S. government. This layered and nebulous power structure has been both denigrated and lauded at various times in our history. It definitely works to avoid concentration of power (probably a good thing) but it stands in the way of efficiency and effective policy at other times (usually a bad thing).
The GOP Angst
Which brings us to the GOP and their spate of nominees. By most accounts the front runner is a crass neophyte with a pandering, populist message that appeals to the basest instincts of the disaffected majority (that's the best sentence in this piece). The second and third front runners (Cruz and Rubio) are farther right than is typical, but they look moderate in comparison to the Donald - moderate in terms of rhetoric at any rate. Meanwhile the "establishment" candidates (Jeb, Christie and Kasich) seem rudderless - unable to compete for the reality TV spotlight that has become the GOP campaign. GOP insiders are anxiously wringing their hands while the left is rubbing theirs together like Dr. Frankenstein (or ..stein) during a thunderstorm. What is happening to the vaunted GOP?
To which I say meh... The Grand Old Party controls more than 55% of all state congress seats and governorships. They control the federal legislature (house and senate) and, thanks to Bush era appointees, the Supreme Court has a conservative bent. The GOP is hardly doing poorly. In fact on some measures they are decidedly winning. One might wonder why the Democrats are so smug. Hillary is an accomplished woman with good credentials. She would probably be an outstanding president - but she has feet of clay and an albatross husband. And the alternative to her is... Bernie Sanders? I have nothing against Bernie, but his populism and demographic problems make him an immediate also ran. So how is it the Democrats they think things are so going so spankingly? Should the GOP lose the presidency (and Hillary will be a tough as nails opponent there's no doubt about that), they will still likely be in control of two thirds of the reigns of federal government and most of the states. So buck up GOP - Trumps a loony populist yes, but you do have a few other fish in the pan. Meanwhile Democrats - it might behoove you (as my Dad use to say at the dinner table) to think about something other than the presidency in 2016.