Presidential Candidate Discussion
Posted by Max Dunn Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:49:00 GMT
What makes a good president? Who should we vote for in 2008? Neither of these are easy questions. In this blog entry, J.R. Tozer and I will debate these questions and hopefully come up with some interesting insights.
A few weeks ago, I decided I needed to figure out which candidate to support – so I could be more pro-active this year (I’m really fed up with our govn’t – both republicans and democrats). Hilary is not my top choice, and I hope she does not get the nomination.
I’d be curious what conclusions you’ve drawn about the candidates. Here’s mine: Initially, I reviewed lots of websites that have tried to objectively distill each candidates positions on major issues. I created a matrix, but found it pretty useless actually. Mostly because the issues are all weighted so very differently. For example, I felt good about Ron Paul until I saw he’s against Stem Cell Research, a nonsensical position from my perspective. I liked John Edwards until I discovered he’s for capital punishment. But are these issues really even relevant when we have things like energy independence and war mongering?
There are even websites that ask you what you think of the issues and then match you up with a candidate. Surprisingly, I lined up with Kusinich or Ron Paul, and they are opposites in many important ways. I guess I’d like to have a hybrid of the two, but that does not exist. Thus, I don’t think the quizzes are really valid.
So I changed my approach to reflect the most important issues to me. It’s an interesting exercise, and I’d be curious what your six most important challenges/characteristics are. Stop reading and think what they are. I came up with 5 issues and 1 presidential characteristic I’d like to use to make my decision. They are detailed on the attached spreadsheet, and at the moment, I’m leaning towards John Edwards. He seems to be intelligent and open/honest in debates and in interviews (with Bill Maher and Jon Stewart). He is the strongest green advocate and for getting out of Iraq. Lately, I have heard people saying he is leaning too far to the left, but I don’t know what evidence there is for that – have you seen it?
I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I’m getting close. If it’s not John Edwards, it’ll probably be Barack, but I fear he really is to left, and will create lots of new programs and spending obligations. I don’t like Hilary – she seems to be a hawk and I think she’s slimy. What do you think?
Ron Paul is not against stem cell research in particular. He is against federal funding of any research: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul252.html http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/80/rights-of-taxpayers-is-missing-element/
On Ron Paul… His own words from your first link: “I object to forcing taxpayers who believe harvesting embryos is immoral to pay for it.”
To me, this suggests he’s against it whether it is federally OR STATE funded – the logic would apply to both taxing agencies. Further, the idea that medical research should only be privately funded ignores the fact that much of it is basic in nature and won’t provide any financial incentive for the free market to pursue – drug companies research drugs – who’s going to research diet and obesity for example – there’s not financial incentive – no patent protection for knowledge everyone can use freely.
But remember, while I consider this issue to be important, it is just noise when compared with the bigger issues of peace, spending, the environment, etc. I think Americans (myself included until now perhaps) are too influenced by ideological and divisive single-issues. It prevents us from cooperating to find the most competent candidate and solving the most pressing issues.
Ok, let’s talk about what are the most pressing issues. I would argue that historically, the less a president did the better off all of us were. In almost all cases, when presidents succeeded in passing some big agenda, history later showed it to be folly.
But if I had to pick one issue that would actually help the country more than any other, I would say it would be to reduce the power, size and complexity of government, which I consider even more important than the Iraq war, environment, peak oil, social security and health insurance. So unless a candidate is committed to that issue, I would rather see someone ineffectual in office so that don’t actually increase the reach of government.
Interesting perspective. While I agree that reducing the size, power, and complexity of government is desirable, I have to disagree about it’s relative importance. Much much more important to me is that we stop military agression and start providing leadership on global warming and alternative energy.
I’d argue that the direct monetary costs of the war in Iraq would FAR exceed the savings from reasonable/feasible cuts to government. And beyond that we have the economic consequences like risk-lifted oil prices, deficit spending inflation, etc. And the political consequences of being perceived around the world as a bully (especially by terror recruiting efforts).
And while the size of our government will inevitably fluctuate over the coming decades irrespective of the next president, our ability to affect global warming and achieve energy independence requires action today. I’d rather pursue smaller government when we have less pressing problems.
Ok, fair enough – these issues are important to you. However, rather than debating whose issues are more important, why don’t we first discuss how the issues we feel strongly about affect our choice of candidate.
There are two factors that come into play here: 1) do we consider other qualities of the candidate other than just their support of our issues and 2) how do we know that they will keep their campaign promises?
In regard to point #1, other events could occur during the candidates term that would take precedence over our current important issues. For instance, maybe Saudi Arabia decides to withhold oil from the US and allies with China who sends troops to Saudi Arabia to insure their supply of oil. If this happened, the candidate that would pull troops out of Iraq and focus on the environment might not be the best person to handle this type of crisis.
Point #2 is also important to consider because many candidates break their campaign promises. For instance, Bill Clinton was solidly for integrating gays into the military while he was campaigning, but then broke this promise even before he became president.
So, do we support a candidate solely on their campaign pledges to support the issues that are important to us, or do we look for other qualities as well?
Ok, excellent point – we need a leader who is much more than just four or five agreeable positions. For example, I wouldn’t vote for someone dishonest, dogmatic, unintelligent, or uncharismatic no matter what positions he holds. He would be an ineffective leader ill equipped to carry the country forward through uncertain challenges.
So how do we judge the candidates intelligence, charisma, etc.? I feel that watching interviews and debates reveals something about them. What else is there? (I wish historical voting records were easier to review, but it is not possible to know why they voted one way or another – too much pork, waiting for a better bill, etc.)
BTW, I view your example in point two as a distraction – another divisive issue that isn’t as important as it seems – certainly not something to swing my vote. And as I recall, there was progress towards a more tolerant policy as a result of Clinton’s efforts. More than that was not politically feasible at the time. I imagine there may be other more important campaign promises broken than that one.
Most candidates do have a track record of public service, so it is easy enough to look back at their previous promises, actions, behaviors and votes. These indicators will provide a much better guide to what they will be like in the future than anything they are saying now. So maybe it is best to throw out all campaign rhetoric and debates entirely and base our decision solely on their past record.
We can continue to discuss who is the best candidate, but I already know who is going to win the presidency … John Edwards!
Hillary won’t get the nomination because she is, well, Hillary. Obama won’t get it, and I am sad to say this but he won’t get it because he is black. While to those of us in urban centers this isn’t a factor, there are still large parts of the U.S. that aren’t ready for an African-American president. (See the results of this focus group )
So this leaves Edwards getting the Democratic nomination. As for the Republicans, it doesn’t really matter who is running. Bush has mucked things up so much and alienated so many people, including many Republicans, that any Republican candidate doesn’t stand a chance in this election because people will want a change.
Another factor that will provide an interesting twist to this election is that either Ron Paul or Bloomberg will run as a third-party candidate. This will pull more votes from the Republican side and further cement the Democratic win.
Now that the presidential election has been decided, it doesn’t really matter anymore who we think would be the best president. We just need to get used to saying: “Hail to the Chief, John Edwards!”