Bottom Line:
Picking a candidate based exclusively on affinity, bigotry against another candidate, or pure pragmatism is unwise.
Supporting text:
Three Mistakes in Picking a Presidential Candidate
Why does anyone run for President of the United States? Good men and women are put through a grueling process that demeans them as it fails to enlighten us.
Too often picking a presidential favorite turns (in my head at least) on silly mistakes. The minute I think about them, I realize how foolish my thinking process had been. Here are three temptations that bedevil me and seem to have infected many people I read:
1. Error of Affinity
Don’t vote for a person, because they are like you in some irrelevant way. If you are a woman, merely voting for “the woman” is bad decision making. If you are a Baptist, voting for the Baptist is not reasonable.
Being Baptist or a woman are not good grounds for deciding the best candidate for President.
Of course, you might root for a member of your group to do well, not embarrass your “team,” or even use your affinity in choosing if it is almost impossible to decide on other grounds.
If I were going to vote for a Democrat, I would find it hard to choose between them on policy grounds. All the reasonable ones have substantially the same positions of every major issue. A reasonable Democrat might settle a “close call” decision, by picking a candidate most like self.
I don’t think it is irrational to say: “I was unsure who would be best after due diligence, so I am voting for X, because X is a Y and I am a Y. It would be encouraging to see a Y in office.”
All things being equal, it is fine to root for the home team. If you are a Baptist, then it is normal to feel a thrill of satisfaction in the Huckabee candidacy. Mormons must enjoy the fact that Romney is doing well in the race.
Unless both men are equally qualified, this is not a good enough reason to choose one of them.
2. Error of Bigotry
A bigot is a person with an unreasonable dislike of another based of characteristics that are not relevant to the job in question. I don’t like Mormon theology, so very early in the race I was tempted (God help me!) to use that as a means of deciding.
Clear thinking helped me see that this was wrong.
If you don’t think you can vote for Clinton, because she is a woman, then you are being bigoted.
If you don’t think you can vote for Obama, because he is black, then you are being bigoted.
If you don’t think you can vote for Romney, because he is a Mormon, then you are being bigoted.
(Since religions contain ideas, some of which are relevant to governance, I have written extensively about when they would be relevant and when someone would not be a bigot in using religion as a means of picking a candidate. Start here. Romney has plainly passed any reasonable standard for religious fitness for office.)
3. Error of Undue Pragmatism or Undue Finickiness
If he or she wins, and you don’t like what he or she does, have you really gained?
The “lesser of two evils” arguments is acceptable, but can go too far. If the only reason NOT to vote for Ron Paul is that he cannot win (he cannot), that is not right since he is the only libertarian in the race. If I were a pure libertarian, then I would vote for Paul to begin the long process of making my views mainstream.
Bluntly, voting for someone whose views you hate is rarely wise.
Of course, if I can choose between two mostly satisfactory candidates (as I can this year), then picking the one that can win is sensible.
People can be too choosy . . . so straight they lean a bit and that is also not good. This finicky political consumer turns up his nose at any Republican not Reagan or any Democrat not Kennedy. Of course, such a Morris-the-Cat voter would have walked away from Reagan or Kennedy in the day.
How do you know you are too choosy? You make an issue list, but none of the candidates who match it please you. You agree with what a person says, enjoy their speech, but then read commentary on it, or watch pundits on television and change your mind, not based on new information, but because the pundits did not like the speech.
Five Positive Things For Which to Look:
1. Is he or she qualified?
There is no certain way to answer this question, but successful previous executive experience does seem the best qualification. Governors are good. Legislators often do not have the right kind of on the job training.
Look for diversity of experience. Has he or she been in the private or non-profit sector?
2. Does he or she have detailed proposals on issues you can study? Do you agree with most of those proposals? Can they be implemented in a Congress that will either be split between parties (gridlocked), slightly Democrat, or very narrowly Republican?
3. Is he or she a good communicator who will be able to represent your views well?
4. Can he or she appeal to enough of the nation to govern?
This is NOT the same the purely pragmatic question of winning. Can he or she appeal to the middle enough to get things done if elected?
Does he or she have friends from different backgrounds? Can he or she appeal to people who may not agree, but can be charmed into going along for the good of the nation? The Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan relationship is a good example of a president using charisma to govern.
Do people like the guy or gal?
5. Does the candidate have the personal life to act as a good role model from the “bully pulpit?”
Often foolish people point out that many past presidents had bad private lives discovered long after they left office as a justification for intentionally electing someone with a bad private life everyone knows.
Such a “known private life” is no longer private . . . it has become public. This is true even if it is not the candidate’s fault. Like it or not, presidents are role models.
Ritual Disclaimer: I do not think my preferences in the race have influenced this post, but if the California primary were today I would vote for Mitt Romney.