In a generation, voters have devolved more to pop culture enthusiasts than to a thoughtful electorate. As an electorate, we have become smitten by the person with the most clever soundbite or someone with whom we agree on a single issue. Too often, we are left with “the lesser of two evils.” We’ve lost perspective on what our leadership should be and, as a result, we get a government that is either pandering or incompetent or both. And so it is in the 2016 rodeo for President.
This election gives us an excellent opportunity to practice a necessary change in our personal selection processes. Proposed is a different, but much more effective criteria for choosing the person who best defines “leader” and does a much better job of eliminating the hack.
The criteria for this model are these:
- Decision Making
I’ve run the GOP candidates through this criterion and came up with an interesting result: Mike Huckabee.
No matter how much we might agree with a candidate, not all of them are really likable. Why is that important? If we don’t like our leaders, nor will others. That is a significant factor in governing. If a person is disliked, everything about him/her becomes questionable. Their motives, their honesty and their commitment are suspect. Is this fair? Sometimes not, but such is human nature.
Whether in a stump speech, large venue, televised debate or in small, intimate gatherings, Huckabee is as likable and enjoyable person as one could want in an officeholder, candidate or next door neighbor. His sense of humor is endearing and, though sometimes scathing, is never mean. Yes, there are other candidates who are “likable,” but certainly not all. Mike Huckabee is a 5 Star bud.
Voters should be more expansive about choosing candidates on their stated political philosophies. We have come to favor those with whom we are most in agreement based on one or two key issues. Immigration, Second Amendment, abortion, the economy, foreign policy, terrorism, etc. And, though it is unlikely that a candidate will touch all the right buttons for every voter, everyone of us should look at candidates with the template “Who thinks the most like me?”
Once again, that has eliminated several candidates for me and, again, Huckabee is left standing.
This may be the most significant item of the list and has, in my scaling, taken out several more candidates. When presidential decisions are to be made, who do you trust to make the most thoughtful choices for the greater good and to do so without wavering or being, well, indecisive? Not the most politically expedient, not the choice that is influenced by “special interests” and not a knee-jerk or emotional reaction, but a true, presidential decision. Narrowed yet again, Mike Huckabee is someone with whom I would feel very comfortable having at the head of the table in the Situation Room when a crisis hits.
There is another part of decision making that voters usually miss. Who will their candidate bring into his/her administration? Will it be the same old group of bureaucrats we’ve seen before? Will it be a bunch of whack-jobs that are single agenda oriented? Who will the candidate/president nominate to the Supreme Court or to other Federal benches? Will they be philosophers or legal experts? Look at the candidates with this tint and see if you would be satisfied with the answer.
I believe Huckabee will make very good selections.
Of course, decision making and leadership are conjoined, but with additional qualities. The magnificent Admiral Grace Hopper once said, “The problem with Washington is there are too many managers and not enough leaders.” Leadership, in addition to making the right choices, is standing on a pile of rubble and rallying the nation. Leadership is demanding that Mikhail Gorbachev “tear down this wall.” Leadership is creating an American persona that is liked by our allies and hated (feared?) by our adversaries (See “Likability”). Leadership is working with political opposites, not working at or in spite of them. Leadership is not bombastic, confrontational, being the loudest or making demands of the electorate. Leadership is marching in front of you during a crisis, beside you when things are good, and behind you when you need to grow.
This cloth fits no one better than it does Mike Huckabee.
None of the above is possible if the person in charge is not trusted. Do you trust your candidate, if elected, to do what (s)he promises? Is your candidate making pledges to get your vote or do you believe (s)he will revert to the usual Washington muddle? What does their record say about their commitment to their word? How consistent has (s)he been in this campaign compared to others? Would you trust your candidate to make personal decisions for you?
On this, for me, Mike Huckabee leads the pack.
The purpose of this piece is to encourage voters to think more selectively about how they approach a very important decision. Don’t base your choice on a speech alone. Look into not just what candidate you like, but who will make the best president.
The reason Governor Huckabee is highlighted is to point out how a candidate meets the standards I use. I’m not important enough to make endorsements, but my choice for President is Mike Huckabee.
Without a prejudiced mind, run the candidates through the test and see who makes it through.