But that’s what we like to think.

Every four years we go through a Presidential election.

You can’t miss it.

Every newscast leads with an election story, talking heads go on incessantly, true believers scream at each other and after a few weeks we all get sick of it.

We can’t escape it.

We rarely see it for what it is…

A huge marketing campaign that has little to do with politics or economics.

Consider the Presidential election of 1990…

George Bush was promising to give people money in the form of a tax break and Al Gore was promising to give people money in the form of drug discounts.

It was more like bribery than electoral politics.

Presidential campaigns are all about views, momentum, and projection. Campaign managers live for the day they can get a photo of their candidate alongside some iconic image that will elevate their candidate in the eyes of the electorate.

Psychologists call it the “halo effect”, by the way.

It’s the reason Presidential handlers try to associate their candidate with positive events and opposing candidates with negative events.

Even when the candidates have nothing to do with those events.

Americans have a strange view of their Presidents and the elections that put them in power.

They seem to view the President as a National Daddy – an autocrat with the power to make momentous changes to the country, and even the world.

Presidents and their acolytes push this silly narrative, claiming their President is responsible for all good things that happened during his term in office, and all bad things are the fault of the President of the opposing party.

It’s all nonsense.

No, Ronald Reagan did not topple the Soviet Union.

He just happened to be President when the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of socialism, emerging global consumerism and a crumbling economy.

No, George Bush did not cause the collapse of the industrial economy in 2008.

That was a turning of history. The industrial economy had become obsolete and Bush just happened to be President as it made its last gasps in the early 2000’s.

No, Barrack Obama did not cause an economic recovery.

In fact, a recovery never occurred. GDP has never approached 20th century levels, gig work now takes the place of jobs, and the annual income for half the population is less than $40,000 and dropping.

Plastering every media outlet with outlandish claims that candidates have such power is why so many people think of the President as the National Daddy. As if the President is an emperor or omnipotent God-like ruler.

Presidents have influence. That’s about it.

Donald Trump passed a tax cut and started a tariff war with China.

Barak Obama expanded the use of executive orders, weakening Congress.

George Bush militarized the war on terror instead of policing it.

But those things are of little significance compared to powerful worldwide trends. The slide toward populism, for example. People all over the world are resisting socialism and authoritarian control. Just brush up on the news from Hong Kong, China and Venezuela to name a few.

Imagine Bernie Sanders winning the presidency.

How do you suppose Congress would respond after he officially submits his universal health care bill?

It would be a free for all.

Every congressperson and senator would see it as an opportunity to score political points back home and big campaign donations from the health industry.

Health care lobbyists would descend on Congress insisting on guaranteed profits, continued tax-free operations and more rigorous malpractice protection…

…because that’s where they left off with ObamaCare.

Sanders would completely lose control of his health care plan.

But that is the way our system works.

We don’t have an emperor making public policy with edicts and pronouncements.

Instead, Congress people negotiate the language of bills with each other and cast votes. The President’s role in legislation is very limited. He can comment, just like anyone else, but he gets no vote.

He can veto bills Congress passes, but Congress can override his veto with enough votes. Even if the President can cajole members of Congress to vote for a bill, the Supreme Court can void it as unconstitutional. Franklin Roosevelt found that out several times early in his first administration.

But elections don’t address any of that because none of the marketing machines promoting candidates want to admit their candidates are anything less than saviors of the world.

We don’t address the hard questions.

No candidate will face the question of the out of control national debt and deficit. It’s a complex problem requiring complex thinking, and that’s not how marketing works.

It’s easier to promise free health care, free child care and free community college and avoid talking about how to pay for it all.

What Presidential marketer is going to tolerate a candidate proposing higher taxes to benefit the profits of the health industry, day care industry and education industry?

And what about our ever-expanding administrative state…

…the bureaucracies run by unelected officials working hand in glove with huge corporations?

One of the hallmarks of fascism is tight connections between government and industry. Should we dismantle the Administrative State? Cut the firehose between the Treasury and Raytheon and refuse to support the pharmaceutical conglomerate their exorbitant COVID profits?

But we don’t even think about those questions.

Instead we debate whether the government should give the education industry trillions of dollars to get people off the hook for their worthless educations.

Or how to funnel even more money from the US economy into the coffers of international health care conglomerates.

Or concessions to global warming that feel good but have no effect.

But effective solutions do not draw votes.

There is one overriding truth to the marketing of the President…

…We get exactly what we deserve.