What a Difference Four Years Makes

Day 3,058, 17:20 Published in USA USA by Israel Stevens


What a Difference Four Years Makes


All throughout my campaign, and in a few of the articles I wrote while President, I talked about being President four years ago. I want to take some time to write about the differences that I see both in the position of President, and the country as a whole.




Being President

It’s sort of the same. The National Security Council, DoD orders, Interior programs (albeit renamed now), media, etc. They’re all the same. Or at least mostly the same. At the very least, the idea behind them is the same. I guess what I’m driving at is that the ‘outline’ of the Executive is the same. The people are different, but the base functions of the departments, and the Executive branch remain the same.

It was like riding a bike. I just needed to know what all the programs were called, and what their function was.

I found that being President wasn’t as intense as it once was. I distinctly remember going from one crisis to the next. Constantly staying up too late. Getting bombarded with texts and PMs (both forum and ingame).
When I left office the last two times, I wanted absolutely nothing to do with being President. I enjoyed my time, but I was done with it. The demands were just too high.
But this month, I could totally go for another term. Or 3. Or whatever. The intensity just isn’t there. To me, it most closely resembles being the Party President of a Top 5, a few years ago. There was a lot to do, and a lot to manage, but ultimately, it was doable. And if you checked out for a few days, it was fine. Things continued to function without you.

Personally, I had a lot of difficulty with Foreign affairs. It wasn’t just that the countries we’re close with have changed, it was that I didn’t know who anybody was. All of my old go-tos were either dead, or out of the loop. It made it frustrating having to rely on the pomp and circumstance of formal PMs, as opposed to the back channels that I am more accustomed too.





On Congress

The problem with Congress, is that it never changes anymore. The people are almost exactly the same as they were the term beforehand. Yeah, we always had constants before. But now, it’s the same 35-40 people. With a few newbies sprinkled in for good measure.

On the surface, this sounds great. 40 or so players that are active and engaged. That know what they are talking about, are proven leaders and are committed to the United States. And that is all true.

But (there’s always a but), they also all have their own agenda. And they are so ingrained in their ways, that every discussion seems to devolve into the same old us vs them mentality. There is little room for new thinking.
With everyone having an axe to grind, they are looking to cut someone else down, or expand their own power. Whatever is best for the country seems to come second.

It’s frustrating, but there is also not much that can be done about it. The state of the game being what it is, there are only so many good candidates to run for Congress in the first place.

Congress has always been dumb. That has not, and probably will not ever change. But we used to have much higher turnover. And in my opinion, that allowed discussions to be more substantial. It wasn’t just the same people arguing amongst themselves all the time.




Our Mentality

A week or so ago, Tenshibo asked me is there still really a game to play?

The answer I gave him was wordy and long winded (surprise surprise), but it boiled down to sometimes.

There are still moments of greatness in eRep. Moments that we will remember beyond a few weeks. But they are becoming fewer and fewer. And are becoming increasingly farther apart.
The elements of being President that I enjoyed were still present. But they came less frequently.

I believe that part of this is what I touched on in my last article. That we play the game too conservatively. That we do what is mechanically correct, but not always in the overall best interest.

We worry too much and we take the road more travelled.

We have taken the technically superior Wild Owl Doctrine, and allowed it to permeate our entire country. The WOD is great for foreign policy. It keeps us safe and secure. Full bonuses and a strong alliance. But it is also very safe. It makes sure that we don’t ever risk going to war with someone. That we play nice not just with allies, but with the neutral countries and enemies too.

To me, it feels like this idea has taken hold in all aspects of our country. There aren’t specific examples of things. But when you talk to people about doing somewhat controversial things, they hem and haw. We just don’t have that bold spirit that I feel like we used to.




I’m certainly not advocating that we just upend everything. That would come with it’s own set of problems.
But I would like to see us be a little more bold; a little more brave. I think that it would be better for the country, and make sticking around this place a little more appealing.