Closing Arguments on the Substance

With Super Tuesday imminent, and the Democratic and Republican fields narrowed to a more manageable level, the time is right for me to sum up and flesh out some of the issues that I've discussed in my series of articles "on the substance."

So much of this Presidential campaign has been insubstantial, both in the campaigning itself and the coverage of it. This series was a response to that. My original articles explored the candidates' platforms, but there are other considerations that I promised to go over in my summation.

As you read this, I ask two things of you. First, judge this article on the fairness of the presentation, not on my analysis. I provide that as a guide to how I think we should make our decision, by having a fair knowledge of who the candidate is, then filtering it through the prism of our own individual priorities. Second, I challenge you, the readers, to keep your comments productive and substantive. To that end, for this post only, I will be moderating the comments based on that criteria.
I learned a lot while doing these articles, and in many cases, my expectations were confounded. First of all, I didn't expect many people to read these, as the maxim that the media uses to explain its fluff coverage is that that's what people want. Surprise, surprise, they were all very popular.

I began with Ron Paul, because the media's alternating marginalization and ignoring of his campaign struck me as grossly unfair. Although I concluded that I could not support him, his supporters were very grateful to have his platform presented fairly. However, after doing an article on Mitt Romney, I came to realize that my analysis of Republican candidates was going to be of limited value to people interested in those candidates. In Romney's case, I'm glad I did it anyway, as I believe that he, too, has been treated in a grossly unfair manner by the press.

I did review all of their platforms, so I will include them in my summation. Ok, then, let's have at it.

How Should I Evaluate a Candidate's Platform?

It's not as simple as, "M'kay, 1 point for Healthcare, minus one for tax policy...". First, you need to figure out the order of importance for you. For me, a lot of the issues are inseparable. For instance, you can't really fix the economy if you want to cut taxes and continue spending trillions of dollars in Iraq. In my analysis of the Democrats, I found John Edwards' platform most in keeping with my values and priorities.

Next, you need to look for deal-breakers. This is why I stopped writing about the Republican candidates. The base of the party has shifted so far to the right that none of the candidates could pass the deal-breaker test. In fact, if I took the things I liked about each, such as John McCain's and Rudy Giuliani's immigration policies, Mike Huckabee's infrastructure project, and Ron Paul's Opposition to the war and respect for the Constitution, there's still no way I could vote for that Frankencandidate. All of them oppose any tax increase ever on anyone. Look, you can make a car go faster by reducing wind resistance and tire friction, but eventually, you gotta put someething under the hood and in the tank.

Mike Huckabee is a good example of this. I liked a lot of what he had to say, but his support for a federal marriage amendment and his "Fair Tax" plan were dealbreakers.

After that, you want to make sure that the candidates' positions are compatible with each other. For instance, John McCain wants to cut taxes and spending, but continue to fund the Iraq war for 100 years, if necessary.


Finally, you need to weigh those priorities against a president's ability to affect them. Mike Huckabee can pray all he wants to change the Constitution, but it ain't gonna happen. I don't like what this says about him as a candidate, but it is not a practical consideration.

An ancillary consideration is how political reality affects those positions. You can give some weight to this, but not a lot. For example, every Republican candidate is pretty much required to oppose Roe v Wade. If you're a Republican who is also pro-choice, like Giuliani was, you'll have to decide between reading the Republican candidates' tea leaves to figure out who's just winking at the issue, or voting for a moderate Democrat. A lot of moderate Republicans are finding Barack Obama's candidacy, with its promise of bipartisan cooperation, particularly attractive.

For the Democrats, I find their embrace of "Civil Unions" to be cowardly, but not worth losing the general election, as much of our country has reached a point where they'll share the right of marriage, but not grown up enough to share the name "marriage" with all consenting adults. In fact, it would be tough to support a candidate who favors full marriage rights, because he or she would get slaughtered in a general election.


What about race, religion, and gender?

These issues are very personal. Until this election, race and gender have never really entered into it, and religion only rarely has.

In my view, none of these should ever be considered as a negative. In other words, don't say, "I would never vote for a...woman/black/Seventh Day Adventist." I feel this way because that is what this country stands for, the right of individuals to be free and to be judged on their own merits.

It seems logical that the reverse would be true, too, that you shouldn't view it as a positive, either. However, I think it is a fair consideration, if made properly. A prerequisite to this judgment is that the candidates are similarly equal in other respects. Having said that , you have to weigh the commonality among the group against the ability of an outsider to grasp their issues. For example, it is fair for a black voter, having judged Barack Obama at least close to equal to Hillary Clinton on other issues, to say that Barack has an understanding of that shared anxiety that goes along with having a black face in America.

It is equally fair for the same voter to look at Hillary Clinton's record and judge that she has been effective at making laws that have a real impact, so it's just one consideration.

There's also the historical implications of electing the first black or female president. I think it is fair to consider that, but again, only with all else being pretty much equal. I think both are long overdue. As they signaled in last night's debate, a "dream ticket" that smashes two barriers is not out of the question.

Does that mean you're a bigot if you vote for John McCain? No, but since white male is the default setting for American presidents, I don't find it compelling as a positive. Neither should it be viewed as a negative.

As far as religion goes, I think unless it intrudes into a candidate's policies, like Mike Huckabee, it should be off limits. Picking a president based on religion is like picking a shortstop based on his favorite color. It is irrelevant. It boggles the mind that 90% of Americans would not vote for an atheist, no matter what. What if that was the guy who could solve everything? Hey, you can laugh at him from heaven later.

What About Things Like 'Electability'?

Some of you know how I feel about this concept, but with the field narrowed, there are substantive considerations here. The problem is, often, a candidate is described as "unelectable" because the general electorate doesn't already agree with him or her. An effective leader with a great message, like Howard Dean or John Edwards, or Ron Paul, could turn that into a positive by drawing a clear distinction with his rival and lead those in the middle off of that fence. By presenting a candidate who doesn't challenge the status quo, you may start out at a higher level, but you have nowhere to go.

Sometimes, it refers to a candidate's "negatives", particularly in the case of Hillary Clinton. Again, I make a similar argument. Many of her negatives are based on an amorphous "bad feeling" in the air left over from the rancorous end of her husband's term, and a healthy dollop of misogyny. However, when people get to know her, as they did in New York, the impact of those negatives disappears. That's why I think it is a wise move for Bill Clinton to back way off in his advocacy of her.

Ron Paul is another candidate who is considered "unelectable", so much so that nobody even bothers to say he's unelectable. That's a shame, because although I disagree with important parts of his platform, the fact is that people respond to his message when they hear it. The media owes it to the voters to actually let them know what their choices are.

"Electability" is a silly term because it presupposes the outcome of the thing it's trying to predict the outcome of. If a guy is on the field, let him play.

Should Endorsements Matter to Me?

Well, yes and no. The person making the endorsement is of small importance, unless it's really someone whose judgment you trust, like Dr. Phil. Of slightly more importance is what they say. If their support for the candidate is supported by a solid rationale, perhaps one you hadn't thought of, it is certainly a fair consideration.

I'll give you an example. I never thought I would ever give a rat's ass what Chuck Norris thought about anything, and his appearances in Huckabee's commercials didn't change that, but I stumbled across his column on World Net Daily, and you know what? It wasn't complete crap. Everyone has a voice, so it's more important to listen to what is being said than necessarily who's saying it.

How Do I Analyze a Candidate's Record?

This is tricky, because they can so easily be distorted. We've all seen the ad that seems impossible. "Jesus voted 349 times to torture puppies!", even though every time, he was voting for a reduction in puppy torture. The best thing to do here is to listen to how the candidates respond to questions about their own records. If you have a good BS detector, you'll make it out OK.

Remember, too, that people change, and grow. John Edwards made a comment that bothered me early in the campaign, that he felt uncomfortable around gay people or something, but by the time he dropped out, his was the only platform to address LGBTQ issues.

What Part Do the Debates Play?

Debates are important because they help to convey a candidate's grasp of, and commitment to, his or her platform. Beware of judging based on applause, because a lot of applause lines are pretty cheap. Don't be influenced by conflict, but rather, listen to what is being said. If two people are arguing, one or both of them might be right.

What About My Gut Feeling?

Human intuition is a funny thing, at times unreliable, but at others, able to sense things that escape rational thought. If you have weighed all of these other considerations, and you still have "a bad feeling" about someone, you'll have to do some soul-searching. We all have prejudices, large and small, that belie our better angels. However, if you truly believe that your unease springs from a place that is true to your self, for lack of a better word, you must vote your conscience.

Your intuition can also be a positive force, and can measure things like charisma and leadership. By themselves, they mean little, but all else being nearly equal, the ability to lead or inspire can make up for some other shortcomings, and can also be instrumental in the candidate's victory.

Should I Vote Based on What Tommy Christopher Thinks?

Yes.

Really?

Well, only if you think it makes sense. Having considered all of these factors, I am leaning towards Barack Obama. While he and Hillary stack up pretty evenly on the issues, I give him the slight edge overall. Both have vastly better healthcare plans than the Republicans, with Hillary holding an edge there. I do think that Hillary's "negatives wold come into play in the general election, but I have no doubt that she could turn those lemons into lemonade. I give Barack the edge because he is probably the best politician of my lifetime, and I'm glad he's got the platform to back it up. He has the best chance, in my view, of bringing people together to make the changes we need.

If Hillary gets the nomination, it is no tragedy. She is an excellent candidate and a great American. We would be lucky to have her as President. However it shakes out, a ticket with both of them would be a great thing indeed. As Hillary said, I welcome that conversation.


Tommy Links:

Tommy's Facebook | Tommy's Mom, The Lady of Light | The Specious Report | Tommy's Youtube

Update: Response to comments

First, I want to congratulate you all for keeping it productive and substantive. I had to delete the first several comments, and was feeling discouraged, but it turned around. I do urge you all, if you found this article helpful, to forward it to as many voters as you can. The message here is to decide for yourself, but decide wisely. I worked very hard on this series, and I truly believe it will help people sort this mess out, so I'd like to see it reach the widest possible audience.

RomneyGirl, thanks for the support. Your story is the exact reason I am a liberal. Although I disagree frequently with the execution of so-called liberal policies, the goal is the right one, a balance between capitalism and a society that provides for its citizens' basic welfare, and helps when it can.

Dottie, you are very perceptive! I'm glad you found the article helpful. It's the one I'm most proud of, so your comment means a lot to me.

I responded to DCulling in the comments, I will reprint that here.

DCulling, I do understand it, but our disagreement is in identifying the problem. You say we need to "grow the economy." We don't. The economy is plenty big. "Growing the economy" really means fattening already bloated corporate profits, and the problem there is, THESE GUYS DON'T SHARE! They'll share our roads, and our courts, and police and fire, but they want to contribute as little as possible to the commons. So many middle and lower class AMericans have been fooled by that faulty "rising tide" BS, and it is sad. We don't have boats. What's needed is a balanced approach, which is what Adam Smith said. The ultrarich have fooled you into thinking that what is good for them is also good for you. It is not.

In response to your later comment, why is it, when your conservative idea fails her, you refer her to liberal programs that the conservatives want to cut? It's paradoxical. As for Hong Kong, this is the problem with the way you guys measure success. Sure, they generate a lot of business, but how do people in Hong Kong live?
This economy shows that the promise of a trickle-down is rarely fulfilled, and when it is, you don't get that people like me, and I'm sure most Americans, don't want to be trickled on.

Greg Jones, unless you have a better idea, I'll take Hillary's plan and work with it. What we have now is unacceptable, and what the GOP candidates are offering is worse. Single_payor is the real answer, but the healthcare industry has brainwashed people into fearing that.