Like most of you – I am sure – I keep getting emails from friends with a link to an online quiz to determine which of the Democratic Primary candidates best fits my own perspective. Invariably, the quiz tells me that my best candidate is one that is my fourth or fifth actual choice. My friends tell me that this has been their experience as well.
The quizzes are amusing but they do serve to highlight one of the major problems with the way we approach politics: the focus on the candidates' particular stands on the issues. This drives our debates, and most of the discussion in the blogosphere and television.
There are four problems with this approach:
- War over Details – Most of the candidates positions are so similar that we end up debating details that are relatively unimportant.
- Winning Matters – It matters not what one's policies are if they will never even get proposed because the candidate loses in the general election.
- Leadership Matters – It matters not what gets proposed if a candidate does not have the leadership ability to get proposals turned into laws.
- Governing Matters – It matters not what laws get passed if a candidate cannot govern effectively. A candidate's ethics, integrity, and managerial competence matters.
War over Details
Getting someone into office who will end the war in Iraq, who will fight special interests, who supports universal healthcare, who will fight to make our government work for the poor and the middle class, and who will improve our children's education is much more important than the specifics of the approaches they now propose. We also know that any candidates proposals will change anyway once they get into office. Putting emphasis on details now results in misguided effort.
Winning Matters
None of the candidates will be able to enact their proposals if they lose in November. Supporters of each candidate make the case for their candidate being the most electable but this is perhaps the most important overlooked issue.
Some questions to consider: What will it take to win in November? Who will vote for a candidate? Who will be passionate advocates? Who will be passionate advocates against a candidate? Will these advocates reach anyone who would not already vote Republican anyway? What role will the independents play? Is there potential for a cross-over vote or is this a pipe dream?
Is the candidate who took the early lead stronger? Or is the candidate who came from behind without an existing organization stronger? Or does the candidate who has experience running in the general election have an advantage?
Leadership Matters
Great ideas won't count if our new President can't get legislation passed. So we should examine each of the candidates records in leadership. What have they been able to achieve in office? How have they shown they are able to get bills passed?
One can see leadership in two ways:
First, leadership in controlling the debate is shown by how the campaign narrative itself has changed in response to candidates on particular issues. Go back to each candidate's announcement speeches, go back to the stump speeches that each candidate was delivering this summer. Have they changed in response to ideas from other candidates? Have any candidates been able to steer the public debate?
Second, leadership can be seen by the followers. Leaders get people to follow them. Strong leaders will have a higher ratio of volunteer to paid staff, strong leaders will generate passion among their supporters. Volunteer for each of the candidates you are considering working for. See if people are passionate about the candidates and why? You can learn more about a candidate's leadership capabilities by talking with a variety of passionate supporters than you can reading position papers or watching televised speeches.
Governing Matters
Some presidents who held promise have been a disaster because they were not able to govern effectively. What were the factors that caused this disparity between ideas and effective action with our recent presidents? Do we want a hands-on president who might micromanage, or one who leads by example and delegates? What does the country need more? Has the candidate shown integrity in their actions? Will they do what they claim they want to do? Will they toss their supporters under the bus for personal gain or will they fight for what is right?
One can also learn much here by volunteering for the campaigns or talking with volunteers. Are the campaigns tightly managed? What do we know about how the candidates manage their Senate staff? Do they like their jobs? Does their style work when scaled up to a much larger position where no human being could possibly know enough to micromanage effectively? How will the candidate adapt? Have they demonstrated an ability to "hit the ground running" with early job transitions? Have they demonstrated an ability to learn quickly? Have they shown good judgment in their choices of advisors and the managers who work for them?
Have I missed anything important? Are there other major considerations?