Comparing Presidential Candidates: Defining Our Criteria
Comparing Presidential Candidates: Defining Our Criteria
We recently announced I will be analyzing the various Presidential Candidates from the view point of the non-partisan, centrist voter. What we specifically said we would do is the following. “Bradley’s system (of analysis) is based on the principles of fiscal prudence, social tolerance, and limited government coupled with the toughest National Defense possible. He will also assess intangibles such as character, competence and credibility.”
Today I want to define some of the terms we’re going to be using.
By the way, if you’re asking what the benefit of my doing this is, then I have a new insight for you. I was reading former Senator Bill Bradley’s latest book last night (no relation, although we’re both from Missouri originally). Here is what I found on page 215 of The New American Story.
“Not enough politicians speak from their core convictions. For politicians to do that, they must be willing to take on their consultants and their fund raisers. Such politicians must also be strong enough to stand before an angry group of constituents and explain their course of action with a clarity and strength that at least gains respect, even at the cost of votes.”
What Senator Bradley seems to be saying is that candidates try to be elected by maneuvering through a set of complex hoops on issues to gain the votes of selected groups who are likely to vote. In the process, the candidate fails to provide us as voters a sense of his or her overall direction and guiding principles they will use to represent us.
What I am trying to do is equip you to be able change how you evaluate candidates and (in turn) help return candidates to being willing and able to talk about their core convictions, what I call principles. I’m hoping you will let others know about your change in how you evaluate candidates. Together, we can overcome the media consultants and fund raisers influence and get better government for ourselves.
Think of what I’m saying this way. When where you are is not where you want to be, there are two questions to answer. Where do I want to go? How do I get there from where I am now?
Let’s say I dropped you in the middle of a desert with a map and a compass. I will only tell you where you are within 40 square kilometers. If you had the requisite skills with a map and compass and I show you one known point in the distance (a mountain peak, a television broadcasting antenna, or a church steeple) you can locate yourself within 1,000 meters. If I show you two known points, then you can locate yourself within 100 meters. If I show you three known points, then you can locate yourself within 10 meters.
Political principles can work for you the same way. No matter what issue you confront, your principles are as unchanging as the location of the known points and you can use those points to accurately determine (1) where you are and (2) where you want to go, along with the route that will take you there.
For a further discussion of what I mean by fiscal prudence, look at the postings I have on that topic on this blog. You’ll note that a lot of them have to do with information from The Concord Coalition. That’s because the Coalition has some of the best, if not the best, bi-partisan information on the reality of this country’s financial status. The debt we are carrying right now is irresponsible. We need to do what is necessary to reduce our deficits to zero and begin paying down our debt with a 20, 30, or 40 year program.
If you want to know what I mean by the principle of Social Tolerance, then read my positing on The Three Circle Theory of Politics.
I define Limited Government as that government which is as limited in size and scope as it can be and as robust as it needs to be to get the job done right the first time. I say a lot more in my book, but that is good enough for now.
For our elected officials to give us the toughest National Defense possible means a lot more than being able to use the military instrument. Together, they must be able to harmonize the instruments of economics, politics, diplomacy and the military. The Beatles would not have made great music if they had had only George Harrison’s lead guitar. We need to put the band back together will all instruments playing at their highest level. The tune they need to play is the one from Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military philosopher: “The acme (the peak) of war fighting skill is to win without fighting.”
And so I will begin this week. I intend to analyze two candidates (one from each party) a week. Are there any questions about any particular candidate you would like to see addressed?
Posted by Larry Bradley at 10/21/2007 12:28 PM 
Categories: National Defense, Politics, Fiscal Prudence
Categories: National Defense, Politics, Fiscal Prudence
Comments