This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The Three Types Of Politicians
Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,
Solving profoundly structural problems by establishing a new foundation of values that most can embrace positively is the hallmark of leadership.
We can usefully classify politicians into three categories: caretakers, practical visionaries and values-transformers.
Caretakers maintain the status quo, a task that boils down to throwing a fiscal bone to every politically powerful constituency and doing so in a manner that does not create career-threatening blowback.
Caretaker politicians may or may not have what President George H.W. Bush famously called "the vision thing," but their actions are all of the caretaker variety, regardless of their soaring rhetoric.
Caretaker politicians take credit for things that would have happened even if they'd lost the election and some other caretaker politician had held the office: the new school would have built anyway, the strike settled one way or another, and the nation would have exited from the unpopular discretionary war.
The signature accomplishments of caretaker politicians always leave the status quo power structure and constituencies firmly in place; ObamaCare is an excellent example.
Practical visionaries use their political capital to push through long-term, unsexy infrastructure projects that do not necessarily have powerful constituencies pushing for them and may have politically potent enemies. Examples include rebuilding or extending sewer systems, systemwide renovation of water works or power transmission lines, etc.
These long-term projects require major commitments of funds and competent long-term management, both of which must be cultivated by the practical visionary politician. They may also require overcoming significant political resistance from constituencies who are not benefiting (at least in their view) from the immense investment of public treasure.
Where the caretaker is happy to glad-hand his/her way through the short-term fray of competing demands, putting our fires and resolving minor battles, the practical visionary must have the vision and fortitude to keep investing effort and political capital in long-term projects that may not be sexy or popular.
The signature accomplishments of practical visionaries tend to be large-scale projects that were not slam-dunks: caretakers do not risk their political capital on long-term, unsexy projects, nor do they have the persistence, vision and character needed to work diligently for years to persuade or cajole doubters and then ensure the project is competently managed to completion.
Practical visionaries have "the vision thing" for concrete projects: revamp teacher education from the ground up, a new water treatment plant, an interstate highway system, etc. Their values are oriented toward improving the basics of civilization: water, waste, transport, education, etc. in fundamental, long-term ways.
Practical visionaries are often under-appreciated in their own time; they may only be appreciated long after they have retired or passed on.
Practical visionaries are also capable of wreaking great damage because they grind through even formidable opposition: those pushing "urban renewal" projects that bulldozed "slums" (i.e. affordable housing for marginalized populations) so freeways could tear the heart out of neighborhoods were convinced that making it easier for suburbanites to drive to their jobs in the city was worth far more than intact neighborhoods. Their confidence in that suburban mindset laid waste to many U.S. urban centers.
The third category of politician is very rare: those who can change the values of the populace and thereby transform the political landscape.
This type of politician is adept at transforming what appears to be unresolvable conflicts by establishing a values-based common ground that enables warring constituencies to bypass the old battle lines. This rare breed is not ideological, as ideologies are what create and solidify the conflicts and battle lines.
Values-transformers find a way to make every constituency feel as if they have participated in the solution, or even better, that the solution arose from their core values. Those constituencies that lose power as a result are treated with respect rather than denigration.
Solving profoundly structural problems by establishing a new foundation of values that most can embrace positively is the hallmark of leadership.
Either those with these leadership skills are avoiding politics or the voters are rejecting them in favor of caretakers who are incapable of challenging political powerful constituencies or finding common ground for desperately needed systemic reforms.
»
- 10058 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Does it really matter if all politicians/puppets are fully owned? I think not.
"A new foundation of values" - What the fuck was wrong with the old values of "do onto others..."
Roll the motherfucking guillotines.
On August 19th, 1934, Adolf Hitler,
already chancellor, is also elected president of Germany in an
unprecedented consolidation of power in the short history of the
republic.
Beware the "strongman."
How about these three categories:
Blind self-righteous Left Wing Idol Worshipper
Blind self-righteous Right Wing Idol Worshipper
and Humble servant willing to see both sides.
And Oh Yes the strong man cometh.
most politicians fall into a category best described by only one finger
Huh. I sort them into different categories.
1) Child molesters and sexual perverts
2) Satanists
3) Megalomaniacs
These categories are by no means mutually exclusive. In fact, the leadership of both parties almost certainly falls into the intersection of the three groups.
Yes, and here is an example of each type
1) Larry Craig, i.e. I have a wide stance
1a) Crane and Studds in a rare moment of bipartisanship in the 1983 Congressional Page sex scandal...
2) Christine O'Donnell, i.e. I am not a witch
3) Ted Cruz, i.e. I have a painting of myself in front of the SCOTUS hanging in my office....
The three types:
1) Those who live off money stolen by the entity they work for.
2) Those who live off money stolen by the entity they work for.
3) Those who live off money stolen by the entity they work for.
The solution to that: make government participation voluntary.
It requires an educated and active citizenry and we ain't recreating Athens anytime soon....
^^ THIS! It's on us, not them.
Absolutely the worst CHS article ever.
The three types are:
From my extensive analysis of political history, I have determined that there are actually FOUR different kinds of politicians:
a) Power-seeking and power-hungry sociopaths
b) Power-hungry and power-seeking sociopaths
c) Those who are both a) and b)
d) Those who are all of the above
More drivel from Chuck-You. American politicians since Taft seem mostly to be narcissistic psychopaths, intent on using political power to enrich themselves and oppress their countrymen.
But I will give King Barack the Unready credit for one “transformational” accomplishment. His Obamacare is transforming his leftist supporters by convincing them of the truism “there is no problem so bad that the U.S. Federal Government cannot make it worse.”
OK. I was going to say there is one type of politician ... a statist ... dedicated to expanding the power and scope of government. That is what politicans do, their reason for being. If they weren't interested in expanding government, they wouldn't campaign for the job!
All government is an unjust aggression against my property rights.
Not sure what your message is HH, but it would seem to me that we need fewer "career politicians" and more statesmen. In fact, politics should not be a career at all.
My message is simple: be careful what you wish for.
The 4th type -- CROOKS -- seem to be doing rather well as of late.
More like: Swindlers, Psycopathic Sex Fein, and Sociopathic tryrant
The Three Types Of Politicians: Corrupt; Totally Corrupt; Barry Hussein O'Blamer Corrupt
categories are a tough call
let me look through DSM V and the criminal codes and I'll get back
\hattip
Thanks for mentioning the DSM V. You've got me into a night of meaty nightmares. ;-)
We can very easily boil it down to just two types:
1) Thieves
2) Aspiring thieves
and then there's the fat ones
the perspiring thieves
I don't "wish" for things. You of all people should know that. This article is rubbish and the "guillotine" is always a figurative expression as that which cannot be sustained, won't be.
Same as it ever was...
Don't take my "you" personally.
I think HH was just throwing out an example of how values-changers can change values (not that it matters what subclassification of politician you are). I guess CHS is correct in the sense that values can be changed. To assume change in the positive direction always is idiocy.
Nope. Values cannot be changed by politicians. Only revolutionary conditions change people's values.
Which direction is positive for an idiot? Baron Professor Sambodi would agree. Sleight-of-hand is an essential skill for a politician.
He was not elected President:
you're not saying he didn't con a lot of people with his speech skills ?
granted I have to give the rest of the world some credit for repressing the Germans
anyone and everyone can become the monster they fear or fight
Oh he was very charismatic, beyond the shadow of a doubt, and like Stalin, a big part of his sucess was getting people to underestimate him, i.e. how else would have the Enabling Act been achieved not to mention his coup in getting offered the Chancellorship in the first place...
thank you for the well needed history lesson + tu
Sweet ride.
3 Types of People:
Loser - The loser views themselves as a victim and has a reason why they can't be successful. These idiots need to be cared for and want something for nothing. Therefore they vote for the Caretaker. They represent the largest segment of the population.
Idealist - The Idealist is a loser at heart but fantasizes that they could be a winner if only things were a certain way of their choosing. They are an optimistic loser and vote for Value Transformers or Practical Visionaries depending on who they would rather drink a beer with.
Winner - The winner is a rare breed who finds a way to be successful in spite of what greasy politician is in office. They don't complain, they achieve. This group doesn't vote because it doesn't matter.
Say, that's a nice car! Imagine its value today.
laws...ur turning vietnemese a....ur turning vietnemse a and i think so...
Those three fingers in the illustration at the splash page leading to this story are the number of fingers all three politicans stick up your ass everyday.
The old values of politicians probably went out of style and use at the time that old values of voters went away.
I hate to keep harping on this, but the end of the day reality is that voters have migrated to caring more about style than substance, sexiness than preparedness, and glib sound bites than a well thought out and rational understanding of difficult issues.
Yes I understand that there isn’t much difference between Team Red and Team Blue, but political parties have disappeared in the past and parties have also significantly changed their core message.
But it is insanity to think that those who benefit the most from keeping things exactly as they are will ever want to change any of this.
Where is the 'purchased' catagory dufus?
There is only one type of politician--the self-serving liar.
The 3 best: Dead, Buried, and Hanged(not necessarily in that order).
we dont need to bury them...we could just make a nice pile, with a little lime...it would be a timeless perfect ponzi monument. we would always have more to throw on...
"I say we hang him!"
"Yeah!"
"I say we kill him!"
"Yeah!"
"I say we hang him, then we kill him!!!"
"Yeah!!!"
"I say we let him go."
"No!!!"
Lulz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXXJHClvsCA
It's one of the handful of movies at that time that raised a generation...
Kinda like yours better, all I came up with initially was breathing, not breathing and somewhere in between...
AKA, "evil incarnate."
Larry, Moe and Curly?
Huey, Dewey, and Louie!
Dewey, Screwm, and Howe...
Yes, now that you mention it, seems I wrote that wrong.
Cerberus, Goofy, and Clifford (the big red dog)
Don't forget Uncle Scrooge!
http://www.feastoffun.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/scrooge_mcduck.jpeg
You forgot crooks...
I am not a crook......
"Tricky Dick" Nixon
I am absolutely baffled that someone would junk the above...
Is G. Gordon Liddy hanging out in the comments section here?
We can usefully classify politicians into three categories: caretakers, practical visionaries and values-transformers.
4. Value Destroyer
Three types of politicians: Liars, crooks, and thieves. Or maggots, pond scum, and cock suckers. Take your pick.
Definitely cock sucker!
Wait, it's a she, right? And not Dianne Feinstein.
Michelle Bachmann would appear to be a natural:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michele-bachmann-corndog-picture-2011-8
As much as I despise Bachman, these picks really aren't fair.
Now if you catch her digging in her nose to the third knuckle, that would be relevant.
True...
But the Right Wing Conservative infotainment complex changed the rules of public engagement...
And what is now sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander....
I'd say making a porn movie about a VP candidate was the low point, but everyone deserves their own opinion.
I saw that one, couldn't tell the difference, both are whores in different but equal ways.
Hey, it was just playing to the MILF market, I bet Team Red sported more wood for Sarah than the other side...
All joking aside, she is very GILFie, but that is more a reflection of her daughters complete ignorance of contraception or her loose morals (take your pick)....
Please, for the love of God, tell me you're NOT talking about Joe Biden!
Rick Perry may also have some hitherto suppressed talents:
https://www.google.com/search?q=rick+perry+corn+dog&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=OKuDUvSwFcydkQfd6YHIAw&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1360&bih=643
I can't help but laugh at photos but isn't this a tiny bit like excuting the retarded?
I guess it serves him right, then.
It's a political class now. Including lobbyists and the rest of what surrounds politics. Greed rules. Staying on the gravy train is the aggenda.
What we dont have anymore are Statesmen.
Like LOP says, roll the motherfucking guillotines.
Correct. True statemen in a functioning republic are still actively working/producing in the current economy. They are not "career politicians".
We have long since left this model of governence and unless corrected our future will be no different than the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Although we will be coming at it from a different angle (they were socialist, where the state owned the productive assets of the country and the state allowed government cronyism/corruption - we are simply coming to the same conclusion with a small private ownership that has now corrupted the state and allowed essentially the same cronyism/corruption - the outcome will be no different as all eCONomies are really local at the end of the day).
well said, the labels mean little. the power always centralizes and becomes a criminal colusion of money, military, industry and state.- at least as empires go
Meh, they're all fucking sociopaths. Who was it said that the sort of people who want to run the country are the very last people you should trust to run the country?
The lack of accountability breeds it. It is fertile ground for power hungry sociopaths. These same people push out reason and logic. These are thier sworn enemies because they expose them for what they are. They hold the door open to others who think like them. They rewrite the rules as they see fit. It spreads like a cancer on all levels (Federal, State, Local/County).
Eventually truth catches up in the form of physical reality (math is a bitch, lol). Sadly, that is only once the population has been pushed over the edge.
Hayek, maybe?
Why the Worst Get On Top - Chapter 10 of The Road to Serfdom
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/07/must-read-hayeks-why-the-worst-get-on-top/
the sort of people who want to run the country are the very last people you should trust to run the country.
A fair observation... An alternative would be to treat political appointment similar to jury duty. It would incentivize society to educate everyone for sure... but I'm not sure we'd feel comfortable throwing the nominees in the deep end without any floaties. Practically speaking, I'm not sure citizens randomly selected could fuck up the country any more than the idiots presently in office or their predecessors.
maybe we're biased as trial attorneys, but I've been for this for a long time.
Most citizen / jurors do their damnedest to do their best. Putting someone to death is a pretty serious task yet we've given it to this system.
Competitive ideas are the lifeblood of any society, economy and democracy but the current system has already sentenced that to death
It would destroy the two parties
Their term should be random and only once. The young are the most fucked by what we've done, they should have a say in this now.
To further the thought experiment, we could also have juror challenges, i.e. for cause and peremptory. This is where the democratic process could stick its nose in and we could have a nationally televised voir dire... text your vote for rudy the plumber to rdy0069 *while rudy is in the background doing a jerk off motion* I jest, but this would be preferred to the present system...
No more campaign contribution issues... no more career politicians... and once you get a constitutional provision limiting the size of the government (e.g. size of budget compared to gdp) and make it more difficult to pass laws, but easier to repeal, then we'll be getting somewhere.
At the very least, it would bring a substantial amount of humility to politics and have a chance at representing the average person... granted, it may just speed up the descent into chaos from the free shit army, but I'd rather give everyone a chance to win the political lottery than some assclown politician who has never practiced a day in his life, despite holding himself out as an attorney.
I'd be satisfied with a mandatory sunset provion for every law. If it is such a good idea and working well, there shouldn't be any problems getting them reauthorized.
I've come to the conclusion that only a Constitutional Convention, made up of delegates chosen by random like jury duty, holds only real hope of reform. Otherwise, the system holds too many points of constraint to make enough progress even if there were a 2 or 4 year burst of electing the 'right' people.
Politicians? There are two types. Those who obey AIPAC, and those who are unemployed.
What about the fourth type, you know, the type that represents the majority of Congress? The type who take money for favors and don't give a shit about anyone else?
there are the crooks, the hookers and the unbent; the last only very rare. EW and the guy u like here, RP.
Like the bad, the ugly and the good. All we lack is Sergio L to tell the story. Maybe TD is he disguised in a pancho.
We need a shoot out and the winner takes the pot of gold. Hang em high and kick the stool.
Didn't mention for good or bad. Big transformation are all good Stalin big time transformer, Hitler and Mao all killed 10's of million with big propaganda based transformation. Heck Chavez & Castro destroyed their countries with big changes of communism we are all working together charade which last till this day. So which is Obama with his propaganda?
three types of politicians:
asskissers
backstabbers
traitors
exactly, though back stabbers are really butt humpers, and the rest are those who one of the top two, depending on whats most politically expedient
I think that the Tea Party politicians don't fit into those choices.
This is a fluff piece, and a poor one at that.
It's CHS, so that kind of goes without saying.
It is funny though, watching Kool-Aid drinkers entering a hangover state while still clutching the bottle.
What category would they fit in? There wasn't a choice for full-on retard.
Tea Party politicians are full of shit.
Suggestion for tomorrow's CHS essay on the 3 types of people:
1) Those who make things happen,
2) Those who watch things happen,
3) Those who say, "What happened?"
You're either part of the problem, part of the solution, or part of the landscape.
1. Ones that are in it for themselves
2. Shills that are in it for someone else
3. Ron Paul
I got to the end of the article and there was no mention of Ron Paul. I was a bit dismayed, but for those of us who know what's what, there's really not need to mention him. It's not so much about the man, it's about his ideals and thats what makes the man anyway.
one thing i've noticed about these guys is they smile even while you're frogmarching them into prison.
Charles, Charles, Charles, I enjoy your posts, but you left out THE main category.
4) Uncaring blood sucking scum eating pieces of shit.
Hope this helps.
your description is too kind
Three types of citizens:
The independent's don't have anyone to vote for, thus...
re We can usefully classify politicians into three categories:
Mangnus Lupus
Maior Lupus
Maximus Lupus
You forgot "Maximissimus Lupus", the most common kind.
I suppose self-righteous narcisisstic douche/douchette is the genus.
I dunno if a description of political types that covers maybe 10%, 1%, and .0000001% of the political class, is of much value. Its like saying that there is gold-buried-em-dem-hills; the questions is where, and how much.
The article leaves out 89% of the blood-sucking leeches.
So this
"Free your mind, and your ass will follow" -- George Clinton
There's no such thing as politicians, unless you've had the world pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
There are only individuals running around saying stuff and doing things.
I think there are only two basic types: #1: liars #2: murderers. That leaves for #3: both.
What is actually happening is that intelligent people who are uncorruptible are being screened out by TPTB very low down on the political totem pole. Voters are left with a simulacrum of choice between candidates who are the same on vital issues and different only on divisive political smokescreen issues, which are played up by (TPTB-owned) MSM.
A politician doesn't receive the endorsement of his/her party unless they are "dirty." Dirty means tainted with scandal and offenses that if made public would demolish his/her career. A dirty politician is controllable by the TPTB.
Did ZH copy and paste this straight out of political idealism 101?
They forgot the 'other' three types:
The mercenaries
The sociopathic, power-hungry destroyer of worlds
The common leech
There are three types of politicians:
1. Those that lie because they are too stupid, dumb or are ignorant of the facts.
2. Those that lie for their own personal benefit, gain or pyscopathic behavior.
3. Those who get laid, past tense of lie, as in "laid to rest." By the fucker jumping, losing his head, or swinging like a clock pendulum from a lampost.
Charles is just pointing out the Public Relations strategies. In factual reality the 3 types of politicians are:
1. Narcissists
2. Sociopaths
3. Statesman
Pity that the Statesmen are so vastly outnumbered.
outnumbered and unwilling/reluctant to associate with #1 & #2.
You forgot the 4th type: bought and paid for minions of the elites.
Ya'll are missing one of the key points of his article. There are no leaders. This is not by accident. Real leaders are a direct threat to TPTB because people follow leaders. Leaders must be identified early and be derailed, marginalized, or controlled. One of the most effective tools to accomplish this task is the education system.
And as last resort, on the off chance that some intelligent, charismatic, non-psychopath is nominated, major interests are able to pull the strings in either major party by determining to whom the most funding flows in primaries. They don't really care which flavor you choose in the election because they make 'em both.
Campaign finance reform and the ending of corporate "personhood" are two of the most important things we need to save this nation.
I prefer part time asshole, full time asshole and revolving asshole. A revolving asshole is an asshole no matter how you look at him.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579186223105265440
Former Morgan Stanley equity strategist Gerard Minack notes the U.S. Gini index, a gauge of income disparities that is also at a record, tracks with measures of political polarization. So he worries inequality could give rise to more political dysfunction that risks damaging the economy.
Another concern is that rising inequality creates financial instability. Raghuram Rajan, the economist now heading India's central bank, has posited that the credit bubble in the early part of the last decade was a consequence of inequality. In his telling, stagnating incomes led middle-and lower-income families to borrow excessively to raise standards of living.
But if inequality has risen to a point in which investors need to be worried, any reversal might also hurt.
One reason U.S. corporate profit margins are at records is the share of revenue going to wages is so low. Another is companies are paying a smaller share of profits on taxes. An economy where income and wealth disparities are smaller might be healthier. It would also leave less money flowing to the bottom line, something that will grab fund managers' attention.
I wasn't aware that you could spell "piece of shit" three different ways.
Fancy that!!!!
According to Macquarie Research:
https://app.box.com/s/kazx1rawh3pxptn555c3
The Bold and the Brave
- In the current circumstances, it is becoming more likely that the successful reflation of the major economies will require some bold and brave policy initiatives that build on the current unconventional monetary policy measures. Not surprisingly, several clues to the way forward come from policy experiences in the Great Depression (notably the US and UK).
- Indeed, the Economist notes that lessons from Depression scholars like Ben Bernanke and Lars Svensson highlight several key ingredients to a monetary policy solution; namely:
- announce an inflation or price stability target that guarantees a period of above-average inflation;
- depreciate the exchange rate; and
- support the depreciation, to the extent necessary, through direct intervention in foreign exchange markets (ie: print money and buy foreign currencies and assets).
- Interestingly, the underlying strategy revolves around the focussed pursuit of inflation, not in beggar-thy-neighbour competitive exchange rate devaluations as many continue to fear as a consequence of ongoing QE monetary accommodation.
- In the event, the clear and present trap for the major central banks in the current environment is one of ‘role stereotyping’ by financial markets that is the result of over 20 years of policy success in targeting inflation. It will take some very bold and brave monetary policy initiatives to convince markets that these ‘independent’ institutions are prepared to do whatever it takes to sustainably reflate their economies.
According to Ernst and Young LLP:
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Challenges_for_central_banks_wider_powers_greater_restraints/$FILE/Challenges_for_central_banks_wider_powers_greater_restraints.pdf
As recently as five years ago, most central bank governors could walk down the main street of their country’s capital city unnoticed, their names and faces familiar only to avid readers of specialist journals. Today, in many countries, they are as well known as the government leaders they serve, and their words and deeds are the subject of heated debate in newspapers, bars and taxis. The continuing financial and economic crises have thrust central bankers center stage and cast them as leading actors, simultaneously berated as progenitors of the crisis and hailed as potential saviors.
It is not clear that all central bankers welcome this transition from membership of a hitherto largely anonymous technocratic elite to an increasingly public role. This white paper argues that central bankers need to adjust to an increasingly public and prominent position on the political stage. A fundamental debate about the position of central banking and its relationship to government is now under way.
The financial crisis has led to considerable interlinked economic, sovereign debt and financial sector turbulence. At the time of writing (September 2012) these concerns show little sign of abating. This has been accompanied by increasing volatility in the political arena and an unstable world against the backdrop of a wholesale macroeconomic global transformation. The benign economic conditions and stable politics of the “Great Moderation” have been shown to be transitory. The global economy confronts its greatest challenges since the Second World War.
Central bankers have achieved a new prominence and become pivotal members of the policy-making establishments of both national and intergovernmental organizations. As a result of a growing responsibility for financial stability, coupled with their injection of massive amounts of liquidity into the financial system has, central banks in many jurisdictions, have extended their powers and remit beyond their traditional “lender of last resort” function. We suggest in this report that this extension of powers is unlikely to be temporary and may not be entirely desirable. It raises far-reaching questions about the accountability and transparency of the principal activities of central bankers.
In addition to their traditional monetary policy and governmental banking roles, central banks have become national and global firemen with growing responsibility for the resilience of economies, the stability of financial systems and individual financial institutions, macro-and microprudential regulation, and macroeconomic and quasi-fiscal policy. They have gleaned far greater exposure to the media, politics and electorates. They have also taken on a whole range of new strategic and operational tasks and become exposed to far greater financial, reputational and operational risks. As their responsibilities have grown, so have their balance sheets and the accompanying risks.
From acting largely behind the scenes, central banks have now entered the political arena in a very public manner. Whether as principals, agents or advisers, it is unimaginable that there would no longer be a strong political dimension to the activities of central banks. If that is the case, to what extent and how should central banks strive to maintain political neutrality? Should fiscal policy, for example, be an arena restricted to elected politicians, or should the views of central bankers be publicly aired as well? To whom should central bankers be accountable, and how transparent should that accountability be to the media and to electorates?
If this expanding remit of new roles and activities is to become permanent, what targets should be set for a central bank, and who should decide whether these targets have been met? While it is comparatively straightforward to set a target for inflation, how does one measure “financial stability,” and just what degree of financial instability is deemed acceptable?
Big centralized government corrupts. Somebody please salvage the 10th Amendment.
I disagree on most points.
First, give us examples of type 2 and 3 US presidents.
I am pretty sure during the last 110 years there was non type 3 and no true type 2 either.
The slight hints towards FDR (highway system) are misguided as he may have been a type 2 in a few areas but he sold out big time in much more other areas. So I take him to be more of a "something must be done" type 1.
Finally let me say there actually cannot ever be real type 3 presidents in existing countries. What you call "establish a foundation" and implying that leader made a conscious decision to pick one, is only rose-colored hindsight. Even the brightest mind is dependent on the mindset and especially the preconceptions of the populace or at least the managing class around him, for the range of choices available to him (assuming no major external pressure exists).
Read "The Commanding Heights" by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw attentively and draw your conclusions.