What Are We Really Looking For?

Well, it's been almost two weeks since I got on my soapbox and ranted about the general state of the political world (feels like such a breath of fresh air to write about other topics).

But, well gee, there's only so long one can go without commenting on some of the ridiculousness that passes for political discourse or debate these days.

Actually, I thought I would start off by responding to my friend, Tom Bestor, who has an excellent blog of his own (http://www.rationalfeast.blogspot.com/). Tom wrote a blog recently conjecturing whether Rudy Giuliani would make a good President and extolling some of his virtues.

A couple of points of disagreement - while Rudy may be a socially more open-minded Republican than many, he has still been a consistent supporter of the war in Iraq, has consistently been pretty much in line with the Republican point of view on taxes (I don't think he sees tax cuts for the rich as much of a problem), and publicly stated on Fox News a couple nights ago that he would likely appoint judges much like Roberts and Alito (both opposed to a woman's right to choose).

And while he certainly stepped up and exhibited some leadership in New York, both as mayor on a number of issues, and after 9/11, I haven't seen a lot from him in terms of making a case for how we need better leadership on homeland security when it comes to protecting ports, public transport or a realistic defense policy that gets us out of the supplication to the military-industrial complex and outdated and unnecessary weapons systems and a look at what is needed from a troop, troop support and intelligence level to ward off 21st century threats, here and abroad.

I think I see Giuliani as more of a cheerleader type leader than someone who has really substantive, innovative ideas to lead the country in the 21st century.

Now, I will agree with Tom that I would like to see a candidate (from any party) step up and talk about the issues in a way that centers on a more pragmatic and less partisan approach than we normally see - and while I continue to find the whole process of picking presidential candidates tedious, too time consuming and too beholden to money and narrow partisan basesof the parties - I am not sure that I agree that someone like Barack Obama does not have enough experience yet to lead the country.

I would have to argue that Obama has a far broader world view and understanding of different cultures, different points of view and insights into the workings of the federal governement than George W. Bush ever had or ever will have, even after eight years in office. And, I would argue, far more foreign policy experience than Giuliani.

What he is lacking at this point is enough substance to his message and his policy positions, though he has been a consistent critic of the war (who else running can actually say that?), and has staked out some very centric and pragmatic positions on a number of issues, including healthcare and energy - two vital issues in the next election.

What I would like to see from Obama at this point is less politicking and fundraising, and more leadership on issues in the Senate that differentiates him from Clinton, McCain, everyone else. This is how I think he could win the primaries and win the next election - by actually exhibiting leadership, rather than talking about it.

Part of the problem we have (and David Brooks wrote about this in his column in the New York Times today), is that there are people, both in and out of government, who have very reasonable approaches to problems, have the ability to debate them rationally (and even admit when their argument is fallible), and have the ability to work with those they fundamentally disagree with and still come up with a workable (albeit sometimes flawed) compromise that actually addresses common problems for the country.

The problem is that the way our democracy has evolved has created a situation where those looking to get elected, or stay in office, persist in taking any little advantage they can of a specific political situation if it creates an advantage for their side, or party. This leaves little room for real, rational debate, where in public forums people are willing to admit mistakes, misgivings, or just plain wrong thinking on serious topics, and gives us debates on Terry Schiavo and a host of other irrelevant topics to the workings of a federal government. We get pork and earmarked laden bills on top of disingenuous (see Bush's latest budget) budgets that don't call out the real numbers, focus on tax cuts for the rich and leave the middle and lower classes holding the bag and in security hell as they try to make it through life without getting sick (since, if the Republicans had their way, we'd get rid of affordable healthcare and government run healthcare altogether).

So, what are we really looking for in the next President, and in political leaders in general??

Leadership, to be sure. But, leadership with an ability to produce innovative and substantive ideas for the country, and the ability to work with people that want to debate issues in a less partisan way, actually produce results and willing to be held accountable for their decisions by remembering that they work for all the people of this country, not just those that have the most money and influence. (Or only accountable to their dog and their vice-president).

That's how I would want us to judge the various candidates as we slog through the next two years of never ending political speeches, partisan bickering and officious posturing.