A Good Presidential Attitude

What is an important attitude a good candidate should maintain?

The ideal candidate would say: I am not for abortion except when not having one would threaten a woman's life. I am not against gay marriage. I am not against the idea of a nationalized citizen rising to the highest levels of political power; but I am against altering our Constitution.

As close to as perfectly as they could, our forfathers sat behind what John Rawls calls 'the veil of ignorance' and negotiated for the best of all possible worlds that would apply equally to 'all'.

I think our forfathers could not conceive of every possible 'all' but succeeded in making the Constitution as applicable as possible to all American citizens.

I would argue that we can debate its deficiencies, but that a nation can often stand one way or another on an issue according to each state's preference (when that preference is not oppressive or discriminatory, and does not otherwise contradict the spirit of the Constitution).

A reasonable candidate should be able to assess: If our forfathers were alive today, how would they feel about issue 'X'. How would they argue about the issue? How would they resolve impediments to an issue's resolution?

Finally, that candidate should ask: Would our forfathers change our Constitution so readily when America has existed as a nation for 231 years because of it.

The Ideal Presidential Candidate

Who would be the ideal candidate? I think it is someone that is not only pro life, but is also pro child and pro family.

That means that the issue is not a matter of rhetorical banter. Instead, the candidate is willing to do away with policies that do not benefit children and families.

It means that children and families get the tax breaks.

It means educational policies are not discriminatory on the practical level although they might seem egalitarian in theory.

It means that healthcare for children and families is not an issue whose outcome lobbyists determine. Hillary Clinton might think lobbyists represent us, but did Chelsea ever have to go without health insurance? I don't think so.

The ideal candidate understands the need for graduated taxation, where everyone is taxed according to his means. Obviously, the middle class should not be taxed more than the rich and the poor should not be taxed as much as the middle class, but the rich should not be taxed less than everyone else.

The ideal candidate understands that ours is an aging population. The amount of retirement-age citizens in America is far surpassing every other American age group (combined). That candidate must look long and hard at Social Security policy.

Privitization is ridiculous, especially now that an oncoming recession appears imminent. What is one possible solution? Shrink the size of government, and re-apportion those funds.

Why do we need a Department of Homeland Security when we have a Department of Defense, a Department of Energy, a Depart of Justice, a Department of Transportation, etc.? Some of these folks working together amounts to a Department of Homeland Security.

Why do we have close to twenty intelligence agencies in the Intelligence Community? If we can't do the job with CIA, NSA, and DIA, there is something vitally wrong with these particular agencies or with the politicians that believe we need more than three of four.

Is domestic eavesdropping the best way to spend our money when Social Security is virtually unsustainable? The ideal candidate would look into that.

As the 2008 presidential election approaches, which is probably the most significant election in American history, we might keep the stated issues in mind when choosing a candidate. Of course there is more room to expand on what makes an ideal candidate, but everyone ought to consider it themselves and make their own wish list.

We Republicans Must Come to Terms with Reality

It looks like we'll start the long process of drawing down in Iraq in September, 2007. Of course, the process will roll over into the next President's administration, and it seems that there is an inconsistency.

The Republican Presidential candidates do not seem atuned to the war's reality. First of all, if we do in fact begin drawing down, no one can possibly suggest that we'll turn 180 degrees in mid-stream and start increasing the amount of force in Iraq.

Also, Defense Secretary Robert Gates (who is far more grounded than Rumsfeld), agrees with Gen. David Petraus that we can increase military strength in Iraq, but it will solve nothing significant as long as the Iraqi government is unwilling to solve problems there themselves.

The way people often summarize the situation in Iraq is that it requires a political solution and not a military solution. Both propositions are false. The situation in Iraq requires a popular solution, one in which the regular folks agree that killing each other is absurd. Yes, we could build up our troop strength in Iraq, which could even stop the violence throughout the entire country, but a forced peace is an unstable peace that requires constant and perpetual tending.

We are not colonialists in means or in ambition. Hence, we do not have the capacity to occupy Iraq in perpituity. Some like to use the rhetorical phrase, 'cut and run', but the fact is that we set out in Iraq to overthrow a dictator and to install a democratically-elected government, and we have accomplished those.

We should stop there, not proceeding into whether or not we've afforded Iraqis a better life. We're defeated there. We shouldn't venture into whether we stopped sectarian violence. We're defeated there. We shouldn't venture into whether we've annihilated terrorism in Iraq. We're defeated there.

At least we can say that we accomplished what we set out to do in Iraq, even if we can't say we accomplished so much more. So, what now? The real war has always been in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. We have to come to terms with that--all of us.