What Do You Want?

[tcepsa]

It seems like every election--especially recent ones--many if not most people feel they are being offered two bad options and their criteria for picking who they vote for are centered around which one of them they feel would be less awful as President.

This has aroused my curiosity.

What characteristics do you want the President to have? What skills do you think are necessary to do a good job in the White House? What experience do you think is necessary to qualify a person to lead this nation? What issues must the President be focused on, and what must their stance be on each? What are things that they must not have/say/do/believe?

Is it even possible for such a person to exist, or are we going to be stuck with making the best of bad choices from here on out? Has it ever been anything but that? Can it ever be anything but that?

[Edit: Fixed grammar, added "not" question]

Comments

[kiss-kass.livejournal.com]

Actually, if I could have my ideal candidate, it would be a Libertarian most likely. Philosophically, they are conservative fiscally, believe in as little federal government as practical and are very much opposed to the federal government inserting itself into social policy. Unfortunately, I have snowball's chance in Hell of ever getting a viable Libertarian candidate.

The the Christian zealots who've managed to dominate the media attention and overrun the Republican party the last many years nauseate me only slightly more than the extreme, extreme liberals who think that the government should tell me how to live and raise my child. A Democrat in Massachusetts seriously proposed making not teaching your child to recycle in the home child abuse. Child welfare agencies around the country are so overworked they can't keep up with cases of ACTUAL abuse as it is, so let's add something stupid to enforce on top of it.

I'd very much like to see a president who has NOT been a career politician. I'd settle for a state delegate who wasn't one. I'd like to see the qualities that make a person successful in the real world in a president. An astute businessman or woman who knows how to balance expenditures, income and debt. I'd like to see a real hardass in office--one who will tell Europe to piss off and countries who want our foreign aid budget that while they don't have to support our policies, they cannot actively support anyone who attacks us or the wallet closes. I want that president to destroy any group that attacks us, then brings our troops home. I'd like to see a president who doesn't advocate policies that tell us how to live our lives beyond what is reasonable. I want a president who realizes that often the solution to a problem is narrow in scope and needn't affect the entire population.

Unfortunately, I don't think we'll have anything but a choice between two evils for a very long time because we are forced to only have two choices and we don't really decide who gets to pick our choices. The number of people who decide who gets the most press, most support and the best shot at success can be counted in four digits or less. Party elite pick their golden child and parade them around with some palatable alternatives.

When parties started to form around Jefferson and Adams, George Washington steadfastly opposed both of them. He called a two-party system undemocratic and said that it put our fledgling democracy in jeopardy. He felt it did more to divide our leaders than unite them and took the power away from the electorate. I believe he was right.

Look at how vitriolic our election process has become. Rather than enumerate policies and agendas, candidates focus on deriding their opponents. I honestly don't care what the candidates think of their opponents or the opposite party. I want to know what the candidates want to do. It took me hours of research to find any information on what our two current candidates actually want to do and even then it is insanely vague. I found millions of hits on how horrible the other guy is.

The politically active find it perfectly acceptable to vilify anyone who doesn't think just like them. It seems increasingly rare to find anyone who thinks that it is okay to disagree and discuss an issue, without coming to an agreement, but perhaps just a little more understanding.
As long as people refuse to listen to opposite viewpoints and vilify any sort of disagreement, we'll never have a good candidate because good decisions require an open mind and free-flowing discussion. People talk at each other, not with each other. It's much easier to attack rather than understand. Nothing will change until enough people demand it and not enough demand that our leaders represent all of the country and not just the people who think like them.

I'm sorry that this sounds like it is a rant. It isn't really. It's more a summary of observations, research and political philosophy.

[arashinomoui.livejournal.com]

Here I'll take a different stand. It used to be that I was of a more libertarian bent. However, you know what, I've determined that under most libertarian-esque systems too many people would get screwed. Congratulations Mr. Bush, you've pushed me from being a socially liberal, financially conservative person to a full fledged flaming progressive who wants socially liberal schemes along with financially responsible payment abilities.

I'd want someone who would actually lead the mob rather than follow, i.e., "Here I am my people, come to me" versus "There are my people, I must go to them." I want someone who is going to be able to stand up to unenlightened self-interest and institute the painful changes. Too much has happened for me to believe that what I would love to have happen to actually happen, but there's a lot of places that can change. (If you want an example, removal of the decision that makes corporations a person. GOD WHAT A STUPID USSC decision!)

But to quote from Bruce Baugh's post, but as long as "When it's the final election, you can either help the worst candidate win or the next-worst one, pretty much. That's how first-past-the-post balloting works, and it will continue to work that way until people promote alternative systems for actual use at lower levels - get folks used to proportional representation, ranked preferences, and the like for their towns, counties, and states, and then it'll be ripe for change nationally. Voting for someone who cannot win does not change the system, it only increases the chances that the worst candidate will win."

Okay rant from libertarian turned progressive over.

[belushi81x.livejournal.com]

I want FDR again... maybe Clinton (Bill)...



also, I was sent this today and it made me think of you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp5wetCNUP8

[nminusone.livejournal.com]

My answers got so long I posted them here.