Posted on 03/11/2007 10:08:37 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued
For all the policy blueprints churned out by presidential campaigns, there is this indisputable fact: People care less about issues than they do about a candidate's character.
A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.
Just one-third look first to candidates' stances on issues; even fewer focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence.
"Voters only look at policies as a lens into what type of person the candidate is," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. That campaign based its voter targeting and messaging strategies on the character-first theory.
(Excerpt) Read more at phillyburbs.com ...
It's easy to be discouraged by this, but remember that Republicans usually nominate the better person, and this shows up on the campaign trail.
Also, one can make the case that conservative beliefs can improve a person's character.
Then I guess Giuliani loses on both ends.
My increased conservatism over the years has made me a better person.
Poll: 55 percent of those surveyed look set to be sorely disappointed, especially those inclined to support candidates with (D) behind their names.
Policies and issues might be important at any given time and for the moment, but they change every day. Character is also changeable, evolves, but hopefully only in a positive direction. How a candidate responds to the issues of the day rather than what policies he holds right now with the national election 20 months off is the only sensible factor in choosing one person over another.
Which is the main reason Rudy is NOT "electable".
Good character tends to support good policy, but personal character and personal political beliefs are two entirely different traits.
Unfortuantely, voters tend to confuse a reputation for a "good" character for the presumption that the potential candidate really HAS a good character. Consider the example of Jimmy Carter. Sunday School teacher, former US Navy officer, family man, and apparently grounded in the virtues of a ruaral upbringing.
Yet single-handedly, he probably set the stage for most of the turmoil in the Middle East for the past generation. First by getting the Shah of Iran to step down, and allowing the murderous cult of Islam to exert its ideology. Then by systematically dismantling our "security girdle", including giving up the Panama Canal, then by hollowing out our military, by defunding and deferring the necessary training and technological upgrading we so desperately needed in those years. And lastly, by shifting the onus for the unrest between Palestine and Israel to being entirely the fault of the Israelis. And oh, yeah, stagflation, where runaway inflation seemed to be a very real possibility, all the while there seemed to be no relief being offered, in taxes, or extension of credit, or anything. Bad policy, every bit of it, but he had the reputation of having a "good" character.
And WHY does character trump policy in a presidential candidate?
I think it's because a president, unlike a Congressman, is a leader. Your senator and congressman are your representatives, your agents; not your leaders.
From a leader we want personal qualities we feel we can depend on when the unknown future arrives with unsettled issues we cannot now discern, much less decide. It's kind of primitive, really, but it still holds. We have to trust a man to follow him into the fog.
And this is probably why we elect more governors than legislators to the presidency. Governors are leaders too.
Somebody's boss, not somebody's agent.
The big one for me is one I think is enduring. My big issue is what the candidate thinks about human freedom and liberty versus slavery to the state. I guess I'm just a one-issue voter.
I don't think many people at all think about being a slave to the state. I think most elections for most voters are just popularity or beauty contests.
I have no optimism for the fate of this country.
NOT traits you'll find in a Clinton
Very true. Of course, Clinton never won a majority of the vote.
What left-play is at work in doing this survey? On the one hand we are told that voters look at character before they look at policy, on the other hand we are told in other stories that another poll rates Clinton, as one of our top-rated Presidents.
We are a long ways from that even though there are tendencies among some of the thoughtless candidates who lack character of their own. For comparison look at Nazi Germany when they decided the citizens were assets of the state. Right there they quadrupled the national net worth. But, while we are not there as yet, it should be a requirement of citizens, self-directed of course, that all remain always vigilant against this kind of thing. It would be refreshing to hear a candidate actually speak to such perennial, eternal issues.
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.