The next president may face the most challenging term of office since the Civil War. Societal changes, economic challenges, geopolitical forces and technology will converge, requiring difficult, but perhaps unpopular, decisions to properly address the long-term consequences.  Whoever wins the election will be despised by half the population. Media is most profitable when people hear what reinforces their views, rather than an unbiased analysis of issues. Furthermore, media maximizes its profitability when it stirs up anger and resentment. This will make building a bipartisan consensus nearly impossible.   In addition to any transitional chaos that may occur just as the new president takes office, two major issues — the national debt ceiling and the second phase of the dockworkers’ strike — will require immediate resolution.  From an economic perspective, 2024 was a year when inflation decreased by 3% without going into a recession. That has never happened before, so the Fed and Treasury Department deserve some credit for this achievement. However, both candidates have made economic promises that they either will be unable to keep or, if implemented, will result in massive government spending that will be inflationary.  Domestic government debt already exceeds GDP, but global debt is expected to do the same. Undoubtedly, that will have adverse consequences globally, possibly stirring nationalism and tribalism. Neither presidential candidate has demonstrated a competency for dealing with these issues.   Fortunately, the dollar is likely to remain strong if global economic duress occurs — unless the election results cause chaos, which discourages the world from holding U.S. dollars.   Furthermore, if we devolve into a world of tariffs, history shows that the global economy will produce fewer goods and services, causing a global economic slowdown. The last time we saw problematic tariffs was in the 1930s during the Great Depression.   Economic distress frequently fans the flames of nationalism. For nearly 80 years, the U.S.-funded European defense umbrella eliminated the need for European countries to arm themselves. It is no coincidence that the past 80 years have been relatively peaceful by European historical standards. As Europe assumes more of the burden for its own defense, its newfound military capabilities might stoke the flames of longstanding nationalistic agendas, leading to conflicts on the European continent.   In Asia, China is flexing its military muscles and has suggested that 2027 will be the year during which they will try to conquer Taiwan. The Middle East is another region where a broader war could erupt.   To what extent should the United States get involved in these conflicts? If we decide to get involved, do we have sufficient military prowess to succeed in obtaining our military objectives? Is our involvement worth the cost?  All of these issues will become manifest in the shadow of technological advances that may represent mankind’s biggest impact on both itself and the planet. Artificial intelligence will replace human labor, supplant human intelligence and will determine how institutions are controlled. AI may be a force for good, or it may be exploited for nefarious purposes, just like the internet — only with greater impact.   The policies we adopt to deal with AI will drive all of these issues.   These issues are scary and certainly are unpleasant to discuss, which is why neither presidential candidate mentions them. But dealing with them is our future reality.   One of the political peculiarities is that it takes one set of skills to get elected but a different skillset to actually perform the duties of office. Because our media has forced a perpetual election cycle, exhibiting the skills needed to get elected seemingly overrides executing the duties of office. As we confront a number of increasingly significant issues, that needs to change.   Neither party has all of the answers. Therefore, rather than merely placating their political base, our leaders must engage in collaborative behavior, bringing forth the best ideas.  During my career as a tax professional, it became clear that the best tax legislation resulted from bipartisan compromise that incorporated the worthiest ideas of each party after appropriately vetting the underlying issues. Over the past several years, tax legislation has been suboptimal because the party in power hastily rushed the legislative process in order to implement its political agenda without fully considering the collateral consequences of those actions.  I suspect that, in recent years, substantial legislation has been enacted in a manner similar to that of recent tax legislation. Unless all branches of our government embrace an operating mode of citizenship above partisanship, the next presidency will be unacceptably challenging regardless of who resides in the White House.  Jim de Bree is a Valencia resident.  The post Jim de Bree | The Challenge of the Next Presidency appeared first on Santa Clarita Valley Signal.