My ideal candidate
Because I am neither a Democrat or Republican, and since I moved to Missouri not even technically a Libertarian, I get asked who I will be voting for in this year’s election. The truth is, I have not decided who I will vote for. However, I’d thought I’d list some basic thoughts on requirements I would like in a candidate:
It’s clear to me from the recent Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act that federal and state governments are completely unable to legislate this issue in any non-religious way. There is no such thing as a “partial-birth abortion”, it’s just a term that pro-life groups invented to create an emotional response from people otherwise on the fence about the issue. The government, state or federal, has no business making medical decisions for women and/or doctors. I will only vote for a candidate who believes the same.
There is no logical reason to be against gay marriage, and as long as the federal government chooses to give tax benefits to married couples, we should be making gay marriage a national issue. The state issue seems like a weak issue to me. It’s funny that anti-gay marriage people love to tout how important marriage is to a society for all of history, and yet they want to make it just a state issue. Seems like the same approach used before Brown v. Board of Education.
If you don’t believe in the theory of evolution, you are either too uneducated, too dumb, or too lacking in critical thinking skills to be President. Period.
We already have a bazillion gun control laws on the books, and they rarely help. We don’t need any more.
Let me post a little of what the author of the first amendment said about church-state separation:
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?
Too often right-wing Christians invent this narrative that the Founding Fathers intended a melding of government and religion. I think this quote pretty much puts that myth to rest, if James Madison himself considered government chaplains to be a violation. I myself have waffled on this particular case, and now I see what the correct answer surely is.
It is in the realm of possibility I suppose that our government is running in top efficiency and there is no dollar being wasted, but I doubt it. Until a candidate promises to audit and streamline government to the same level you would expect a business to be, I can’t justify raising taxes on anyone. Furthermore, don’t just cut taxes without cleaning up the books first as well. That’s almost as bad as raising them, if we continue to run deficits.
I differ with many libertarians in that I see a definite federal role in the environment. If one state is polluting the air, we all breathe it. The environment knows no state borders. That being said, we need to formulate policies based on sound science, not political action groups. In some cases that means corporations won’t always get what they want and environmental groups won’t always get what they want. For example, corporations need to be monitored closely for pollution, and they won’t like that. Environmental groups hate cloning and GM crops, but they’re dead wrong when it comes down to the science. So in short, scientists in, lobbyists out.
The climate is changing, and we’re partially responsible. While I personally doubt our ability to predict the actual changes, I don’t think it’s any reason to keep polluting. See answer on environment.
There should be no limitations on any non-public broadcast, and the fines should be drastically reduced for public broadcasts. The internet should be completely free of government regulation of speech.
I’m not sure how what the best way for the government to manage the energy policy of this country is. However, there is no doubt in my mind that it is an issue of national security. I don’t want the federal government to be regulating the power industry itself, but perhaps we need to dedicate more money for research. Wars have been, are being, and will be fought for natural resources used for energy.
We should legalize all drugs. Period.
I’m not sure the best way to deal with Iraq is just to leave and let the people fend for themselves, but our rebuilding effort over there has been horrific. I think we need a President who is looking to be free and clear of Iraq within ten years, with troop levels close to nil in two years. More focus needs to be on corruption connected to the rebuilding effort.
I’m against a federalized program of health care or health insurance. I think this needs to be done state by state for efficiency purposes. I’m not taking the position of “screw the sick”, but I don’t think the federal government (certainly as it runs now) can adequately provide healthcare. Individual states need to work on developing their own solutions instead of waiting for the federal government to swoop in and fix everything.
The John McCain plan (pre nomination McCain) is the one I would support. There is no gain in rounding up illegal aliens and shipping them out. An actual border fence is just a dumb idea. Let’s create a worker’s visa program, let them come, give them a chance to get integrated, and welcome them. I don’t care if they are brown, black, red or green. They obviously want to work hard to support their families, and that’s a quality we should invite into this country.
The federal government is too big. We have so many duplicated departments that waste resources. We have a Pentagon who can’t track its inventory. We spend money on programs that have no demonstrable effect, but because they are warm and fuzzy sounding, we continue to fund them. We rarely keep track of where money goes, and programs are almost never cut for lack of success. On the contrary, most government programs that fail claim its due to lack of funds, so we give them more money. When they keep failing they ask for handouts.
We have dumb subsidies for businesses. Why are we paying money to shrimp farmers? If they can’t make money on their own, who cares. Let the industry die. The worst that can happen is the industry collapses and we stop overfishing. Stop subsidizing oil companies, farmers, steel workers, shrimp farmers, and god knows what else.
This amendment is one of the most powerful amendments. It extends the Bill of Rights to the states and guarantees equal protection under the law. It’s one of the greatest amendments ever passed, and any candidate who doesn’t see this, doesn’t deserve my vote.
Well, that’s it for now, I will maybe expand upon each one of these at a later time.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:40 am
This is the post I wanted to respond to. But the Dr Frank thing got in the way. I safely pasted to appropriate spot. NOW then….Hey! did you grow up in the late 60’s in brooklyn?
I remember the 70’s and forming strong political opinions.
They continued to morph into a moral ethical human belief system that you clearly and succinctly posted on my birthday.
I’d like you to take the concept of legalizing drugs and take a time travel. What do we look like as a people and nation, after the initial explosion.
Addicts will be addicts. Do you see the potential workaholics and shopaholics finding a satisfactory, available substitute? Do drugs become a strong competitor or fizzle out to franchised head-shops? What would become of our current cultural mores, political lobby, import/export and economic incentives. Take me on your mental journey from legalization to 10 -20 yrs from now.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:15 am
“However, there is no doubt in my mind that [energy policy] is an issue of national security.”
“Stop subsidizing oil companies, farmers, steel workers, shrimp farmers, and god knows what else.”
I’ve heard it argued that some of the subsidies you mention are in place as an issue of national security, that we can’t allow something so important as our food supply (or energy supply, etc.) dependent on a foreign source. Since you want to stop subsidies, I assume you understand the many benefits of free trade, including a kind of coerced cooperation from mutual dependence.
Is energy really so different that we should bear the inefficiencies of self reliance (assuming self reliance works towards improving our security)?
PS How is it that such logical positions as you’ve outlined are impossible to find in US candidates or their parties?
February 26th, 2008 at 9:46 am
We don’t subsidize all foods, and the ones that we don’t, don’t have problems with shortfalls. If you look at ADM, you see that they lobby for both corn subsidies and higher prices for import sugar. So we have farmers that over produce corn so ADM can sell corn syrup, while we all pay higher prices needlessly for pure sugar.
We subsidize sheep farmers, because in WWII, we were afraid that we would run out of wool for uniforms. That made sense then. Doesn’t make sense that we’re still paying for it.
The problem I have with oil company subsidies, is that they are all quite profitable already, even when you consider the cost of their own exploration and research.
I think the oil companies would do fine without subsidies, and we could take that same money and put it into seed research for real energy advancement.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:59 am
I am familiar with producer lobbied subsidies.
In response to my point about subsidies in the name of security, am I understanding that you don’t buy it? If not for food or energy, how about military or space related products?
I’m not one to know, but I’d guess for as much as energy companies want to milk every last bit of value out of existing energy solutions (hydrocarbons), they are just as interested in providing by any other superior energy source. I’m not confident government money would find hydrocarbon alternatives any sooner or with less expense.