Wisdom in Election 2008

The lay of the political presidential landscape is looking pretty strange these days. One prominent Republican candidate is essentially advocating that too much drive is a bad thing, so vote for him! Others have incredible drive, but would use it to take the country down questionable paths of populism or personal ambition. Some of the candidates possess excellent leadership skills, but would lead us down dark paths of dependency upon government or paths of social experimentation.

You might say: I know who is for the Status Quo, for they have no fire in the belly; but why is that a bad thing? That is a good question. Consider that the Status Quo is really only desirable when all the following conditions are met : 1) Your nation is in a position of strength, 2) Your governments are not burdensome to the people, 3) Your people are mostly moral well-informed good citizens, and 4) Your enemies are weak. Note that the first condition is met, albeit less with each passing year as we ship our financial and industrial strength to other nations (and even more recently our military secrets: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/01/business/transfer.php). Note that the second condition is not met, consider of the IRS, property taxes, DHS, etc... . Condition three is certainly not met (consider that the US has at least 40 million abortions to reckon with; also, the education and critical reasoning of the general populace is declining as the NEA increases in power). Condition four is questionable, especially as our weaker enemies (such as China) have become stronger through our naivete. Consider then, that there is need for our nation to move forward, and next ask yourself if a person who does not have a strong drive will accomplish much in a divided Congress. What happens if Congress stymies the improvements of this president? What will he do? Will he say that he tried and give up? Or will he pursue it, perhaps taking it to the American people? A person without sufficient fire in the belly will not be able to advance his case in a divided congress. He won't be able to do it with Supreme Court justices, and he won't be able to do it with Immigration, or National Security, Tax Cuts, or Tax Reform.

You might say: Very well, I know who is for the Status Quo, for they have no fire in the belly; but how am I to know the one who will make America better and not worse? That is a good question as well. First, you should know that the principles of conservatism have been successful in moving this country forward when no amount of government spending for liberal and populist ideas has succeeded. Consider that because our rights are God-given, it is not possible for Government (the liberal's new god) to take them away. The foundation of a belief in God is critical to having a just, moral and FREE society (or if you prefer FREE REPUBLIC). Consider that because Ronald Reagan was prudent with the Soviet Union when the previous presidents were naive, that we did not succumb to their attempts to use negotiation to undermine our national defense ("Star Wars") efforts. Even Gorbachev agreed that such a stance was useful for the Soviet Union to understand the United States priorities and encouraged the peace process. (I guess it was good that Reagan was a so-called warmonger.) Consider that as the NEA gets more funding that education is demonstrably declining (in Iowa, we've gone from being 2nd in the nation to 9th as the NEA has increased in power and education funding has increased).

Principle Zero may be thus derived: A candidate who cares deeply about conservative issues is to be preferred to one who does not.
Principle One may be thus derived: A candidate who has shown leadership in advancing conservative issues is to be preferred to one who has not.

You might say: That is well and good, but how then am I to know the true conservatives from the phonies? That is a difficult question to answer perfectly, however some principles can effectively guide you to a solution.

Many of the candidates want you to believe their rhetoric, even though their public (or private) lives have not shown that they actually have lived their rhetoric. But we must not hold grudges, they say, and encourage us to forget the Biblical principle that those who are faithful with little will be faithful with much, which to the astute tells us to be wary of those who claim a mantle that they have not worn for many years. This is not a new phenomenon, for example, there have been many pro-Life democrats, who upon consideration of a presidential run "see the light" and become pro-Choice. Or vice-versa. Note that any "convert" in the political realm who cannot fully explain their "conversion" as well as provide a well-reasoned support fo the issue (which can be anything of import from life to immigration) should be treated with skepticism.

Principle Two may be thus derived: A true conservative candidate will have a history that supports his platform. (Or... see Principle Three)
Principle Three may be thus derived: A recent "convert" on an issue should be able to a) articulate his reason for the change, and b) effectively articulate the rational basis for supporting the issue.

Another indicator of a potential phony is how honorable and honest the candidate is. Why is being honest and honorable important? First, it indicates whether they have a healthy fear of the Lord. If they see themselves as accountable to God, they are a) more likely to be a solid conservative, and b) more likely to respect God-given rights. Second, it indicates whether they believe that their actions reflect on the people they represent and support. Third, a person who has shown a pattern of honesty in his life is less likely to lie now and be a phony. Here are some questions to gauge the candidates: Does the candidate feel free to twist the truth to attack other candidates? Does the candidate feel free to twist the truth to bolster his own record? Does the candidate attack the questioner or seek to undermine the questioner's integrity? Does the candidate no longer back an issue because it has become unpopular? Websites like http://www.factcheck.org are useful for answering these questions.

Principle Four may be thus derived: A true conservative candidate will be honorable and honest.

Now, armed with these principles, let us apply them to the candidates. Be wary of those without integrity first of all. An excellent leader who says he is a conservative but has no integrity cannot be trusted to advance conservative issues. Now, does their conservative rhetoric match their lives? This candidate is a true conservative. He is honorable and worthy of consideration. Next ask: does he have the drive to advance conservative issues? If you answered yes, then that is indeed the candidate who will advance America.

With these principles, I find that I am left with a strong candidate for President of the United States. Duncan Hunter (http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=1) is a man of integrity, resisting pressure and standing on the principles of what is good for America (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/leadership-knows-rep.-duncan-hunters-arm-doesnt-twist-2006-04-05.html), with a record that matches his rhetoric, as well as the leadership to succeed at contested but critical issues (like the border fence: http://www.house.gov/hunter/border1.html).

Is the first choice not acceptable? :-)

Seriously, I have a distant second (who fails in at least one of the criteria), but I see no need to mention who that is.

How about you, does applying the principles help in weeding out good and bad candidates? If so, what is your short list? Are there principles that are missing?

I think you misunderstand the point of the post. The point is to enumerate some principles (and the reasoning behind them) for reliably identifying candidates who would be good to support and who would not. The fact that I list a candidate who has satisfied the principles is partially for an example, and partially because I find it impressive that he has satisfied such principles. Now, ask yourself, would those principles be good to apply to a governor, or a representative, or senator? I believe so, that they are a useful filter for conservative voters to use when trying to find a good candidate.

I’m guessing you disagree with one or more of the principles, or perhaps find some additional principles are warranted. Feel free to make suggestions (constructive, please).

Short list is Fred Thompson.

As for a second choice...it’s like asking which part of my body would I prefer to be shot in. Hands, toes, head. Coming up short on which body part I’d least like to keep.

Is that the short list from the principles or your own criteria? If your own, perhaps some principles or criteria is missing from my post that you’d care to suggest.

I know that others use different principles for picking candidates — and I’d like to understand them even if I don’t necessarily agree.

Also, would the principles you used in picking Fred allow you to reliably pick conservative candidates for other positions? E.g. would they be of benefit to share :-)

My reasons for not supporting Hunter aren’t needed to be expressed, as they don’t apply to his son, and he’s leaving office this year.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.