Power Streams and the Political Decision-Making Process

In politics, decision-making isn’t a matter of pure personal willpower or ideology - it’s shaped by streams of influence, powerful currents that guide, nudge, or even force politicians in certain directions. Picture a politician as a rubber ducky floating on a river, surrounded by countless possibilities for action. Some currents are weak, barely affecting the duck’s path, while others are powerful, pulling the duck swiftly toward a specific decision.

The earlier in a politician's career these streams take hold, the more they shape their long-term decision-making. If a politician’s rise to power is heavily dependent on a particular industry, donor base, or economic interest, that influence embeds itself into their DNA. By the time they reach the national stage, their political instincts have already been conditioned by those forces.

A clear example: Senator Cory Booker from New Jersey. New Jersey is home to a major pharmaceutical industry, and pharmaceutical money has been crucial in shaping its political landscape. It’s no surprise, then, that Booker voted against allowing prescription drug price negotiations - the only Democrat to do so at the time. His alignment with Big Pharma likely ensured he’d never become president; voters saw that stream of influence and rejected it.

Now, let’s talk about Texas.

Texas: The Military-Industrial Complex and a War-Hungry Presidency

Texas is not just a big state - it’s a state with big industries that shape its politics. And few forces are as dominant in Texas as the military-industrial complex. The state is home to major military bases, defense contractors, and oil giants that profit from war. It’s a power stream so strong that it has swept every Texan president into a war.

• Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969): Escalated the Vietnam War, despite initial reluctance. Texas was a stronghold for defense contractors, and LBJ had deep ties to the industry - Lockheed, Bell Helicopter, and others made sure of that.

• George H.W. Bush (1989–1993): Launched the Gulf War in 1991, defending Kuwait’s oil interests. His connections to oil and defense industries in Texas were undeniable.

• George W. Bush (2001–2009): Gave us the War on Terror, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the disastrous war in Iraq. A Texas oilman tied to military contractors, his entire administration was steeped in defense interests.

It’s no coincidence. The Texas political ecosystem is structured to prioritize war, defense spending, and oil-fueled global dominance. Presidents shaped by this environment are almost destined to lead the nation into military conflicts. The stream of influence is too strong to resist.

Streams of Influence in Other States: How They Shape Presidents

If Texas is the war state, what about others?

• Delaware: The Labor Stream – Joe Biden is the most pro-labor president in generations. Is that just his personal belief? Maybe, but it’s also a product of Delaware’s historical connection to unions and organized labor. The labor movement has been a major force in shaping Democratic politics in Delaware, and Biden’s instincts have always leaned toward worker protections and union advocacy.
  
  

• California: The Tech & Entertainment Stream – A future California-born president will almost certainly be influenced by the state’s tech industry, entertainment power, and environmental policies. Think of how Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, or even a future Republican from the state would likely govern - with a focus on innovation, green energy, and the digital economy.
  
  

• New York: The Financial Stream – Presidents from New York (think Franklin D. Roosevelt or Donald Trump) tend to have ties to finance, Wall Street, and big business. Even FDR, a progressive hero, had to balance his New Deal with the realities of the powerful banking institutions headquartered in New York.
  
  

The Danger (and Potential) of a Lack of Streams: When Influence is Absent

While strong power streams can make presidents predictable, the absence of such streams can make them erratic, unmoored, or even easily manipulated. A politician who rises through traditional channels - state legislatures, governorships, Congress - accumulates connections and influences that shape their decision-making. But what happens when a leader bypasses those conventional pathways and reaches the presidency without a well-established stream of influence?

Trump: The Wild, Unpredictable Ducky

Donald Trump is the best example of what happens when a president is not shaped by long-standing political streams. Unlike most presidents, he had no traditional political career before reaching the White House. No time in Congress. No time as a governor. No deep ties to a particular interest group, regional power bloc, or ideological movement. Instead, he ascended directly from business and reality television to the highest office in the land.

This lack of historical influence meant that Trump governed without a clear ideological or institutional anchor. He wasn’t deeply committed to traditional Republican priorities like fiscal conservatism or foreign policy hawkishness. He could one day embrace tariffs and trade wars - policies more commonly associated with left-wing economic nationalism - while the next day he might push for corporate tax cuts and deregulation.

It also made him extremely susceptible to the strongest influence in any given moment. His decision-making was often dictated by the last person he spoke to, the loudest voice in the room, or even the most dramatic Fox News segment. He had no predictable stream guiding his choices, so his presidency was marked by volatility. He could abandon a long-time ally in Syria overnight, flirt with diplomacy with North Korea, and then pivot to threatening nuclear war - all within a short span of time.

The Case for a President Without Strong Power Streams

But a lack of deep-rooted political streams isn’t always a bad thing. A president who hasn’t been shaped by decades of external influence can, in theory, make decisions based more on personal judgment and practical considerations rather than obligations to entrenched industries, party donors, or ideological factions.

Pete Buttigieg: A Missed Opportunity for Independent Leadership

Pete Buttigieg would have been an excellent example of this. As a small-town mayor, he had very little attachment to the massive power streams that usually shape national politicians. He wasn’t beholden to Wall Street, Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, or entrenched congressional hierarchies.

Had he become president, Buttigieg would have had far more freedom to govern based on his own pragmatism and decision-making rather than on debts owed to powerful political forces. He could have been a uniquely flexible leader, able to weigh issues without the burden of past allegiances.

Obama: Pragmatism and Bipartisanship from an Unrooted Background

Barack Obama, though more experienced than Buttigieg, was also a relatively fresh face in national politics when he became president. As a one-term senator, he hadn’t spent decades tied to specific power streams like some of his rivals (Hillary Clinton, for example, had long-standing relationships with Wall Street, defense contractors, and the Democratic establishment).

Obama’s relative lack of political entrenchment shaped his governing style. He pursued a path of pragmatism and bipartisanship, attempting to work across the aisle in ways that more established Democratic politicians might not have considered. While those efforts weren’t always successful, they reflected a president making decisions with fewer obligations to entrenched interests.

The Balance: Experience vs. Independence

A completely unmoored president - like Trump - can be dangerous, easily manipulated, and erratic. But a president with too many entrenched influences - like a Texas politician beholden to the military-industrial complex - can be rigid, predictable, and incapable of true independent leadership.

The ideal president is one with some power streams shaping their worldview but not so many that they are merely a servant to those forces. Politicians like Buttigieg or early-career Obama represent an intriguing middle ground: informed by political realities but not entirely controlled by them.

When choosing leaders, we should ask: Are they guided by experience or controlled by it? Are they independent or simply directionless? The best presidents aren’t those who float completely aimlessly, nor those locked into one powerful stream - they’re the ones who know how to navigate the currents, steering toward the best possible outcome rather than being swept away by outside forces.

The Takeaway: Know the Streams Before Electing a President

Before electing a president, we should ask: What streams of influence shaped them? Where did they build their political career, and what powerful industries, donors, and local interests guided their rise?

If history is any indication, putting a Texan in the White House means war. The political and economic interests of Texas make it almost impossible for a president from the state to resist the pull of military conflict.

Want labor rights? Look for a Delaware Democrat. Want Wall Street deregulation? A New York Republican might deliver. Want a green-tech future? A Californian president could be your best bet.

The key is recognizing these streams before a politician reaches the highest office - because by the time they do, they’re already caught in the current.