I don't suppose too many of the Republicans who have announced their candidacy for the presidency, or who are planning to run, will take this too seriously if they even get to see it. But eventually there will be a primary in Virginia next March, and I'm going to have to cast a vote in support of one of those candidates. Who?
With 260-something days left, lots of things are going to happen. Candidates will announce, candidates will run out of money and curtail their campaigns. Others will surge for a while and be beaten back by the press. We will find out things that are practically irrelevant but will be turned into scandals ("Senator Umpdesquat's grandfather paid less than minimum wage to a gardener! Oh, the horror -- he is absolutely unqualified to be president!")
All that and there may still be a dozen names on the ballot in Virginia. Our primary is on "Super Tuesday", meaning that only thereafter will there be the biggest winnowing of candidates. So I do expect a large number on the ballot, and I have to decide whose name I'm going to put a check by.
Now, let's be candid -- no matter who wins the primary and, ultimately, the nomination, come November I'm going to be voting for that person. It ain't going to be Hillary Clinton, I can tell you that. If she were a Republican and pulled that email-server stunt, I couldn't trust her as a person, let alone a president. Remember, I decided not to vote for Bob Dole in 1996 because he sold out to tobacco companies and compared cigarettes to milk.
But in the primary I can't exactly cast a "Sure, whoever wins" vote. They don't have one of those as an option. I do have to make my own decision.
So to the candidates, let us start off with what it will take to win my vote, my one little-bitty scrap of input into who gets to take on Clinton, Inc. in the November election next year. And here's what that is.
You need, first and foremost, to be able to win the election. There's no point agreeing with every little sub-component of my belief system, if you can't get enough states to give you their electoral votes. So before you even start selling your platform to me, you have to convince me that you can win. And that requires a few things, plus policy agreement -- specifically:
(1) The ability to speak in public -- glibly, cleverly and articulately -- about the issues facing America. If you stammer and waffle, we won't like you, we won't believe in you and we won't vote for you. I am the first guy to say that I hate debates, because they place undue value on extemporaneous speaking ability rather than leadership. But we vote for extemporaneous speaking ability -- only Romney in recent years has clearly "won" debates and not won the election.
(2) Real conviction -- real, Reaganesque belief in what needs to be done at a high level. If you backed Ronald Reagan into a corner and made him answer a question, he'd answer the same way every time because that's what he believed. Then he hired people to carry out his broad goals. That's "leadership" and the USA recognized it.
(3) An organized sense of the role of the States as presented in the Constitution and as articulated by the Framers in their writings. Why is this important? Because this election needs to be about at least three main issues, and two of them are about money -- (A) the financial health of the Federal government needing to be rescued with a balanced budget; (B) the state of the American economy and the need to inspire hiring and job creation; and (C) the threat of Islamic extremism and terror. It is not about gay marriage, abortion or contraception. If it becomes about gay marriage, abortion or contraception, we will lose. Those are moral issues, and moral issues are the province of the States, not the Federal government.
(4) A deep-rooted belief in the wisdom of balancing the budget of the Federal government, and a commitment to push Congress hard to move toward one. We owe $18 trillion to China and other nations and borrowers. During the 2012 debates, Mitt Romney cleverly noted that he would evaluate every Federal program by the standard of whether it was worth borrowing from China to pay for it, and I wish to God that he had pounded that same line for the rest of the campaign. We need to spend no more than we take in. If we can't pay for it, we don't do it, and before you know it, China is no longer a creditor.
(5) An appreciation of the Laffer curve as it applies to the income tax. The proper implementation of an income tax is to exempt the first $X of income, and tax all the remainder at a single rate, as I wrote last Fall. No exemptions, no subsidies, no joint returns, so the tax code doesn't incentivize reproduction, home ownership, marriage or anything else. That will maximize the revenue from the tax while minimizing the discouragement of labor, and CPAs can go back to doing accounting and not keep dealing with 60,000 pages of ever-shifting tax code. All we have to do is legislatively slide the single rate up or down to find the point where the most revenue comes in, and then resolve not to spend more than that. Do the same with corporate taxes.
(6) A clear ability to define good and evil and see it for what it is. Sending aid to Haiti after an earthquake is "good." Lining up Christians and shooting them for their beliefs is "bad", and bad people need to be defeated. We can call these "Judeo-Christian moral values", or we can call them "American values derived from Judeo-Christian morality", or we can just call them "American values." My candidate will know what they are, and will be proud to espouse them. There is good, there is evil. Oh, yeah -- robbing a convenience store and then trying to grab a policeman's gun to shoot him is "evil."
(7) A recognition of the distinct place in the world that the United States of America occupies, at least when Barack Obama is not in the White House. We are the single prominent defender of the right of all human beings to live in freedom. Our example shines for the rest of the world to see, the success of the idea of a republic of laws and the freedom of opportunity codified in its Constitution. That is our role, our destiny, our reason for existence. My candidate will not waffle on that. The phrase "American exceptionalism" will be heard from that candidate as appropriate.
You'll notice I consistently used terms like "deep-rooted" and "clear" to describe all these things. The views above have to be fundamental and innate to the candidate, because as a voter I need to know that if this person is elected president, and any of these topics come up, he or she will stand up proudly and state the facts. "We can discuss the implementation and logistics", my candidate will say, "but the principle is firm."
You'll also note that nowhere in all the above is a position on gay marriage, abortion, contraception or any other so-called "social issue." Social issues are for the States. Morality does not derive from the central Federal government. My candidate will note succinctly that where there is fundamental difference on moral issues, the Federal government should neither subsidize nor proscribe the activity in question. "Next question?", he or she will ask. Take that, George Stephanopoulos.
As I send this column out to the various candidates, I do hope it resonates with some. Perhaps one may decide to think deeply about what he or she stands for and whether it makes sense. Perhaps none wants my vote all that badly.
But today, the 28th of May 2015, I at least was able to give value to my vote next March.
Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."
No comments:
Post a Comment