|
How can I decide who to vote for?
Should I vote for the one I find most likable? The one with a certain type of experience? The one who seems most like me? The best educated? The best speech giver? The one whose proposals or policies I like best? Shall I consider gender, race, religion, height, hair color, teeth? How about military service, family background, health, wealth, advantage, disadvantage, campaign slogans?
Because it all seems rather confusing, one thing I could do would be to ignore almost everything. I could single out one issue and become a single-issue voter. That would make it simple. But that would be a cop-out, and I am not going to do that.
At least I can simplify by focusing on one particular office, the big one, President of the United States of America. I will focus on that one.
First of all, what does President mean? What does that person do? What is the significance of that position? Once I figure out, I can decide what the criteria should be.
The President is head of the executive branch of government. So, he or she is a type of manager in charge of carrying out the laws passed by the Legislative Branch - Congress. The President promises to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The President is Commander in Chief of the military and takes the lead in communicating with the leaders of other countries, for example, negotiating treaties - which eventually must be approved by Congress. So, the President is a type of manager, someone who organizes the operating part of the federal government so it can function for the benefit of the citizens who live in the various states. It seems pretty clear that the President is intended to be a leader because he or she nominates judges, negotiates treaties, and appoints numerous department managers who will help carry out the tasks of government. This country has something like 300 million people, so the federal government has become pretty big. The President had better be a good manager, a good organizer, someone who can motivate all of those government employees to work hard and serve the people in an effective and honest and trustworthy manner.
Yes, in addition to being a good manager who can organize, coordinate, and motivate, the President should be a leader. To me, this means setting a good example and communicating effectively. It means being an honorable person who most people will admire and respect. It means possessing and displaying wisdom and good judgment. It means being honest. Honest. If I were to become a single issue voter, that would be my issue. I have very little respect for someone who lies. A liar is surely up to no good. Lying is an insult to persons on the receiving end of the lie. When politicians lie, it shows a serious lack of respect for citizens and for democracy. I noticed during the primaries that some of the candidates and their campaigns used devious misrepresentation to mislead voters about the opponent’s positions or comments. I considered that a form of lying, and I voted against people like that. I want someone with integrity.
What would be the characteristics of a good Commander in Chief? I am not sure, but I think it would be someone who can recognize good military men and women – to be high level officers, persons who are intelligent, well trained, well informed and willing to speak truth to the Commander in Chief. I guess the Commander in Chief needs to be someone who listens carefully and critically to his military officers and advisors. I suspect it would be useful, but not absolutely necessary, that the Commander in Chief has had military experience. Surely, that would depend upon what type of experience the person had.
Not yet on my list are campaign promises. Based on the history of campaign promises, I think I will omit this category. However, I will give a lot of thought and consideration to the connection between money and morality, fundamental morality as opposed to religious mandates.
We have a lot of big problems. So, you know what I want? I want a problem solver. A problem solver does not begin with the solution. He begins by clarifying the problem. He listens to many people. He requests and listens to proposed solutions. He challenges, he questions, he has an open mind. He is willing to listen to anyone with a good idea. He organizes and coordinates a process to formulate solutions. Then he moves forward in cooperation with others who are also involved in trying to solve the problem. When a decision is his to make, he bites the bullet and calls upon his wisdom and judgment, and his capacity for thinking and reasoning. He makes the wisest and best informed decision possible.
Okay. I now have a good idea of what the criteria should be. How do the candidates measure up? Since there is a lot of politicking going on, how can I tell? I will look for clues in their backgrounds and in their behavior, past and present.
A good manager who can organize, coordinate. and motivate. Obama has had quite a lot of experience organizing and coordinating, and motivating. His campaign is well organized and has run smoothly. He apparently has good management skills. McCain was a mid-level officer in the Navy. I am pretty sure that involves management activities and decision making. (I have no military experience myself). The military is an authoritarian structure. People give and receive orders. So, McCain would most likely have an authoritarian management style. I wonder if he would be as much like a dictator as Bush has been. Obama has worked in communities. There is no way he could have succeeded acting like a dictator. This is supposed to be a democracy not a dictatorship. Obama wins this one.
Leader: good communicator. Obama is clearly a strong communicator. McCain is not bad. I will give Obama a slight edge on this.
Leader: integrity, honesty, good judgment, sets a good example. I rate Obama very high on this one. I have been following closely, and I have great respect for him. On the other hand, I have heard McCain lie several times. I heard him answer a question which I think was about when he was first getting acquainted with his current wife and how he dealt with the 17 year age difference between them. McCain almost proudly said, “I lied” and then he laughed. Whoa. He thinks lying is funny? He has picked a vice presidential running mate who has been lying her ass off. (Sorry, that was a little crude). McCain stands beside her as she lies. That makes him an accomplice to her lying in addition to his own. Is this a person people can trust and respect, including leaders of other countries? I think not.
Commander in Chief. Obama has no military experience. The military has become a professional “volunteer” army, navy, etc., so there are a lot of people with no military experience. Should they all be disqualified? Bush and Cheney certainly leave a bad taste in my mouth on this issue. Clinton did reasonably well though. Obama is a good listener. I question whether McCain is a listener. He is a maverick. He has been described as rebellious and uncooperative, or words similar to that, especially when he was younger. (If I were going to describe a rebellious, uncooperative person in a favorable way, I would call him a maverick.) McCain comes from a military family. Does that mean he thinks of military solutions more readily than someone else might? Perhaps. Obama has shown good judgement regarding war related issues. McCain gets points for supporting the surge. I am going to call this one a toss-up.
John McCain and his campaign have been suggesting, directly or indirectly, that we should make him president because he was a POW. That is like arguing that I should be made mayor because I got hit by a falling tree limb while picking up trash in the city park.
Problem solver. This is important, and I am not sure how to assess it. One person cannot solve our problems by himself. It will require leadership and the ability to motivate many people to work together. It is especially important that the person acknowledge and understand the problems. For whose benefit will this person solve problems? Corporate America? Oil companies? Wealthy people like Cindy McCain? The citizens, in general? The poorest among us? The so-called middle class? I am not wealthy. I pick Obama on this one.
What else? Is there anything else I might want to consider? Yes. When and why did this person decide to go into politics, and why does he want to be President? Their current answers are politically calculated, or at least, politically acceptable. So, I will need to look at their backgrounds for clues. I will need to infer, that is, estimate based on what they have done in the past.
People usually start thinking seriously about their careers by the time they are in college. Obama obviously took his educational opportunities seriously. His regular college success was good enough to qualify him for Harvard Law School where he also did well. McCain went to the naval academy and graduated fifth from the bottom in a class of 899. Whoa. That does not sound good. Someplace I read that he had a little problem with being rebellious and uncooperative. He has said that he benefited from the efforts and good will of other students who helped prep him for exams. I am an educator, and this tells me a lot about his work ethic because he is clearly not dumb. I wonder if his attitude toward education has improved since then.
McCain has said that he became a pilot because he thought it would be fun. That was real mature. At about the same age, Obama passed up big money to take a job helping people who needed help. After running for president in 2000, McCain said in a book that he ran for president because… well, I do not recall exactly what he said, but it had something to do with the glory or prestige of being president.
Obama has shown clearly and consistently where his values lie. Either that or he has been running for president for almost 30 years and has spent the entire time building up his resume. I doubt that.
Oh yes, experience in Washington. What about federal government experience? McCain has lots of it, and Obama has little. How much does that matter? Is it good or bad to have experience in Washington, DC? Well, one of the most experienced persons ever to become president or vice president is Dick Cheney. I never want to see another president or vice president like that. Another with lots of experience was Lyndon Johnson the guy who turned Vietnam into a major war and tried to pay for both “guns and butter” without raising taxes. Not only was the war a disaster, but the U.S. economy had really big problems for about ten years after that. They called it stagflation – high inflation and recessions combined. It was bad news. On the other hand, a past president with very little experience - only two years as a Rep from Illinois, was Abraham Lincoln. Well, obviously, experience in Washington DC is not a good predictor.
I know who I am going to vote for. It turns out to be a very easy decision.
My name is Mike. I am a 64 year old white male who current lives in Maine, but I have lived in 6 other states, all west of the Mississippi. I would really like to share my thought process.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(411 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
