manithree said:
The whole idea that there are people who will actually decided who to vote for based on the debates should finish shattering any faith you have in the U.S. voter.
Shallow and non-informative as the debates are, I'd be thrilled if a few more folks would actually pay serious attention to them rather than casting votes based on mere party affiliation, race, religion, or who looked/sounded best.
manithree said:
For me, deciding who to vote for is a process of examining a candidate's record and history, and (with a boulder-sized grain of salt) their statements. I then choose the candidate who appears to most closely match my ideas of the role of government. Character does matter some, but only to the extent that I think they will stick to the principles that are getting my vote.
I try to mirror your approach, except that to me, character matters a lot, along with core convictions: both political and what one might call apolitical cultural, social, and moral convictions. Some of the biggest challenges a president faces are those that were not predicted or talked about. And regardless of what was said in a debate, or "on the record" in published plans, or even what may have been done in previous positions, how a man deals with the proverbial "phone call at 3:00 am" will be driven by who he is at his core: his character and convictions.
That all said, I'd prefer to have a man who does the right thing for the wrong reasons (say Clinton) than a man who does the wrong thing for the right reasons (say Carter). And getting to know a candidate's character and convictions can be difficult, especially for high national office; a bit easier in local offices where you can get to know candidates personally. But to the extent that I can get to know to a candidate's character and core convictions, they are important to me.
manithree said:
The number of sheeple who thought Romney "looked presidential" in the debates, and then left the undecided category boggles my mind, especially since these "swing" voters decide elections. One of the liberal brainwashing machines (aka public education) has raised an entire generation to believe that elections are popularity contests with no real consequences. Yes, I believe student council elections are pure evil.
As bad as that is, I think the real problem is that most of us simply vote our own self interest, most often our immediate financial self-interest. So the "47%" (and especially the 40% who are getting paid to file their federal income taxes) are likely to vote for the candidates (congressional, president, legislative, etc) who will promise to keep the money rolling in to their favored programs. The elderly and near elderly are not likely to support anyone who proposes changes in Social inSecurity or Medicare. The great middle class won't vote for anyone who talks seriously about taking away our much beloved mortgage interest or charitable contribution deductions. The rich don't tend to donate to the campaigns of those who they think are going make it harder for them to keep their earnings. (A few will support those who want to raise rates on certain kinds of income, while carefully being sure their money comes from other types of income.) As liberal as California has become, ask yourself the likely outcome of the presidential election if gas prices to spike to near $10 a gallon there and remain high for the next 3 weeks.
Our founding fathers pledged (and many gave) their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to form a nation. The "greatest generation" defeated Nazism but then came home and allowed FDR's unconstitutional social programs to become fully entrenched. Their children in the babyboom generation has helped spawn multiple generations who expect to live beyond their means. Don't tax me; Don't tax thee; tax that fellow behind the tree...all while providing ever more government services.
Talk about cutting back high school sports (with their massive costs in land and buildings for stadiums, courts, and diamonds) and how many parents scream bloody murder. Suggest that schools don't need professional quality theater stages and sound systems or performance centers and the remaining parents get upset. Suggest tax increases to fund these and the childless rightly balk; while any talk of increased activity fees will cost you the votes of parents. Talk of raising gas taxes to cover the cost of better roads or even the cost of keeping cheap oil flowing and drivers get upset. Mention how much of a subsidy mass transit gets and the urban planning and living crowd goes nuts. Talk about local drilling and environmentalists are unhappy, concede that personal pollution really is a community concern in a place like the SL Valleys and conservatives get very defensive.
The easiest way to start a fight with a Republican in Utah is to get him talking about the evils of the dole and then after he is in full agreement, point out how public education is the single largest welfare program in the State.
You can do likewise with Democrats by getting them talking about the evils of laws regulating alcohol and how people should have personal choice and that religious values should not be part of politics. Then point out how imposing taxes to fund welfare programs removes personal choice and imposes personal moral (ie religious) beliefs by force of law. Ditto with how laws on the water usage of household appliances or outlawing 100W Edison bulbs remove personal choice and impose the personal moral beliefs (about proper environmental views) by force of law. Or even how anti-discrimination laws (be it racial, sexual orientation, or otherwise) likewise remove personal choice and impose personal morals via force of law. (What makes it inherently wrong for a Jewish business to limit clientele to those who keep kosher, or for a business that caters to homosexuals to decline to do business with those who preach that such conduct is sinful? )
Libertarians look to be the most self consistent, but really don't care to talk about the logical conclusions of their self-consistent policies including enforcing contracts for selling vital organs before you die, or what would be an effective inability to limit public nudity or even public sex acts.
Fundamentally, there is great diversity in how people think society should be ordered. In many cases these views cannot coexist and there isn't much room for "compromise". The best solution I've found is to support federalism with much greater diversity among the several States and people voting with their feet. Some States would be more liberal, some more conservative, some more libertarian, some more statist. A limited, enumerated (and thus agreed upon) set of fundamental rights would be respected nationwide (including freedom of speech, religion, and the press; RKBA; jury trial, attorney, right to remain silent; right to be secure in our persons, papers, effects; etc), but most everything else (including alcohol and other drug regulation, social programs, definition of marriage, abortion laws, speed limits, tax rates and what is taxed, laws on euthanasia/assisted suicide, age of consent, etc) would be left to local majority vote.
And then our presidential and congressional candidates' views on most domestic issue would not matter. Those things would be largely the purview of the States. DC would deal with foreign issues and the fairly small number of issues between States. But would do very little internal to any State.
Return election of federal Senators to the State legislatures.
And various States might give serious thought to exercising their constitutional power to shift election of presidential electors away from a popular vote and toward something like legislative appointment, while removing so-called "faithless" elector laws. Utah could have 6 electors, chosen by our legislature, who could get to know presidential candidates and cast informed votes. In turn, Utah and our issues might actually get a bit more attention because it would be a lot cheaper and easier for candidates to campaign to our 6 electors than to our 3 million residents.
Like you, and the founders, I have a certain lack of faith in popular elections. We have no choice to have government by the people. But some levels of insulation are warranted and in the case of federal Senators and president, a little more insulation is needed even as I think judges need a little less insulation.
Too long of a rant. And probably largely 0ff topic. Sorry.
Charles