My initial foray into writing about politics occurred when I was 17 and I wrote an opinion piece in my high school newspaper before the 2004 election. In that piece I opined that the election didn't seem as dire as people were making it out to be and that "both candidates would essentially do the same thing if elected". By which I meant that it did not seem like a clash of ideologies, and that neither of the old white guys running seemed markedly different. Kerry made the election about how we shouldn't have gotten into the Iraq War (which he voted for), but didn't say that he would immediately stop the war if elected. Both candidates opposed same sex marriage. It didn't really seem like either one would take the country on a significantly different course.
While I took a lot of flak for it at the time - mostly from teachers - looking back 20 years later I stand by it. Bush vs. Kerry was not a fight for the soul of the country, and the ideological divide of that election seems so small compared to today.
As we gear up for another election it seems that the economy may be at the forefront of this matchup. Recent high inflation, high interest rates, and high housing costs have most voters focused on which candidate will be better for the economy. This is incredibly stupid.
The economy is the thing the President has the least control over. It's not like the President walks into the Oval Office on Monday morning and sets the price of gas, the value of the stock market and the cost of rent. The President can't issue an executive order to create 200,000 jobs. The economy goes in natural cycles, and if you think politicians are responsible for when economic bubbles burst or deserve to take credit for boom periods, that ain't how it works.
Oil is a global commodity, so if you think the President can significantly change the price you pay at the pump, you're a moron. Sure there are some levers the president can pull, like adjusting gas taxes and energy policy, but that pales in significance to things like global demand for oil and OPEC production.
Here's the other thing about the economy... there is no debate about the direction we should take the economy, everyone wants low unemployment, cheap food, good jobs, low inflation, so then it's about which politician's plan is the best way to go about achieving those things, but even economists disagree about how effective those plans are, so nobody really knows who has the better plan. Even if those plans work, they oftentimes take years to have an impact, so by the time they do, that President has probably left office. I suspect the previous President has more impact on the economy than the current President does.
I think people should spend more time weighing their vote on things the President actually does control. The area the president has the most control in is Foreign Policy. That is almost entirely under the purview of the president as head of the executive branch. The issue is that foreign policy seems to have the least impact on people's daily lives. Unless the president is starting WWIII, most people don't seem worry much about foreign policy. But a Presidential Candidate should be judged on their understanding of the nuances of diplomacy and how well they would work with other world leaders.
The second area to consider is domestic policies. The president has more control in this area than the economy, but since most domestic policies require congress to enact there is less power here unless the president's party also controls congress. However, these also impact American's daily lives more than foreign policy. A candidates approach to healthcare, education, benefit programs, etc. should probably be the driving factor for most people.
The last area that I think is useful to consider is how the candidate would perform leading a large and complex organization. The president is essentially the CEO of the country and needs to do many of the things a CEO does, like hire subordinates, budget, set strategic vision, improve government operations. This one might matter to me more because I work for the executive branch, but I think running the government is an often overlooked aspect of picking a President. This is one of the reasons that I thought Mitt Romney would have been an effective president. His career as a management consultant and then CEO of Bain & CO, followed by essentially saving the 2002 winter Olympics, then as a Governor leading a state seemed like a great resume if you're looking for someone who would be a competent executive in large complex organizations.
This area would probably also cover how they would respond to an unforeseen crises. No one voted in 2000 based on who would be better at responding to a terrorist attack, and no one voted in 2016 on who would better handle a global pandemic. But invariably these crises come up, so I try to think about which candidate would better handle a true nationwide emergency.
So to sum it up, in my opinion you shouldn't vote based on "who is better for the economy", but vote based on domestic policy positions, understanding of foreign policy and diplomatic relationships, and lastly on how they would be as an executive running a vast and complex organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment