What Sort of a President Do We Want?

[No nice pictures for this post; this is only for grown-ups.  Matter added later will be in Blue.]

The Internet is full of helpful information on this subject, and here is a place where (at Noon, EDT 2019/4/26) a lot of this information was summarized.  But we have to clear up our minds, and summarize, and tabulate and organize what we think our fellow-citizens need.

Normally we do not have to do this.  Ideally (I mean, if there wasn't that pesky Electoral College, whose effects we are really unable to adjust for, and that's why these hordes of Political Engineers are in business) we should just be able to vote for whom we want.  But now we have to keep an eye out for what it is that our---sometimes muddle-headed---fellow citizens might have at the back of their never-too-sharp minds.  Pardon my patronizing attitude, but I began to suspect long ago that the population of the US was not too bright, and nothing since then has made me change my mind.  When the electorate has done the right thing---in my opinion, I have to admit---it has been as the result of a large minority working very, very hard to urge that outcome.

It is beginning to look as though only a middle-aged, white, protestant, heterosexual, married and monogamous, high-visibility, moderate, business-friendly, ultra-patriotic, handsome, male candidate is appropriate.  John Kennedy was catholic, and that didn't turn out so well.  OK, maybe the fact that he was catholic did not affect the outcome, but the fact remains: he got shot.  Barack Obama was black, and that didn't turn out so well.  Hillary Clinton was (and is) a woman, and that didn't turn out so well.  Bill Clinton was a little not-so-monogamous, and he squeaked by only with great difficulty.

Can we keep the demographic of our potential Presidential candidates so narrow for much longer?  In my eyes, Barack Obama's presidency seemed brilliantly successful, but the majority seems not to agree.  It appears that even among the Democrats, there was some dissatisfaction with the choice of a black.  I think---and shoot me if I'm wrong---the Presidency needs to be nudged a little in the direction of diversity.  We've tried racial diversity (Obama), and the Conservatives just could not deal with that.  (They could; they just could not deal with Democrat success; the fact that it was a black president who was so successful made them even more sore.) and their idiot rank and file could swallow the racist objections better than they could swallow a confession of the political success.  Remember, in politics, it's not what you believe,but what you say you believe.  How about gender diversity?

Should we try a woman again?  The choice is between Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar, and Marianne Williamson.  (You can read all about each one at the link I gave above.)  Kirsten Gillibrand began to gain attention as an anti-sexual harassment champion, and she needs to be a little punchier, a little more multi-issue, before I support her.  Elizabeth W. is awesome, and I have no major problems with her.  Kamala Harris, too, is wonderful, but appears a little too easygoing.  (I take this back; I can't decide on Ms. Harris until I can see her in some non-prosecutorial circumstances.)  I don't know much about Mss. Gabbard, Klobuchar or Williamson.  Marianne Williamson is an author, and I imagine she must have got tired of telling everyone to take charge of their lives, and decided to walk the walk; good for her.  She has to do a lot of reading, or watch a lot of YouTube, as the case may be, and I will be watching the debates.  I have heard a few opinions such as that, well, that might work in Britain, but they're sissies.  That will never work here; only a guy will do.  US opinion moves slower than molasses, but I hope, for all our sakes, that it does move.  It is a pity that the Presidency is has become so much showmanship, and so little statesmanship.

I think we tried a businessman---thinking of Trump as a businessman for the moment---and I don't think that worked out well.  Quite apart from Trump's inability to play well with others, his support staff, picked from the business community, were a failure at running the country.  Of course liberals viewed their policies as disastrous.  But they were disastrous even for conservatives, and for business and trade, which displays a surprising inability of those from the business community to keep their eye on the big picture.  They can come back and tell us that we picked the wrong businessman.  But I disagree; we have to steer away from businessmen and business-friendly candidates for at least a short while.

The approach of the far-left Democrats to deal with almost every issue, is like maneuvering a large crate into position with a crane.  It's clumsy, but it's fairly direct.  The approach of the business and economics people to the same issues is like nudging them into position with a fire hose.  Indirect does not even begin to describe how ineffective it is.  You lower taxes, you tinker with the Fed, you screw around with trade deals, you talk about Walls . . . Wall Street eats it up (at least most of it), but that only tells us that the very big investors are doing well.  Not many of us are very big investors.  (Robert Reich is a liberal economist, who analyzes how various GOP policies effect the average taxpayer; he has a channel on YouTube.  You can check it out.)

We tried a professor---Obama---and that was not an total disaster.  (If Obama only had the good sense to be White, all would probably have been well!  Not my own joke.)  The closest thing is Elizabeth Warren, who will probably make life a lot easier for consumers, at least; I believe with her, that the Federal Government should clamp down on predatory banking and lending and soliciting practices.

People who are intensely concerned with the environment are singing my song.  Jay Inslee of Washington looks to be one of the most likely candidates to be aggressive on such things as Single Use Plastic.  If you didn't know, this is to minimize or eliminate items made of plastic that are intended to only be used once, from grocery bags, to ballpoint pens, to medical packaging.  He is white, male and handsome, but those are his only drawbacks (jk).

Well, that's just a start.  Bernie Sanders, for instance, is a strong contender, but that leaves our leadership in the hands of the older generation, and I feel that we must wean ourselves off from their paternal leadership.  We need younger, diplomatic and restrained leaders, who can handle new problems and threats with a certain amount of grace.  Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders can certainly do the job of President without turning the position into an international joke that, but there's something a little sad about scurrying to that generation for help with our problems.  If we can't find younger men and women to keep us together, then we won't have an option except to call on those aged uncles.

There are several minority candidates: Thulsi Gabbard from Hawaii, Cory Booker from New Jersey, Julian Castro from Texas, and Andrew Yang from California.  A couple of these candidates look very promising indeed, but I need to learn more about them before I start plugging for them.

Bear in mind that whoever is elected---and I'm expecting, and certainly hoping, that it will be a democrat---is going to have to decelerate the rate at which the gulf between the parties is widening.  You already see in the media, the talking heads clamoring for impeachment.  Impeachment will provide a lovely spectacle for the entertainment of the bored, and to increase the income of the News Business.  It also appears that the GOP thinks impeachment will help their people in the 2020 elections.  They're trying to present it as if not to impeach would be a black mark against the Democrat Congress.  I don't think anyone has a duty to impeach; it seems that pursuing impeachment is just an option.

Please do not stop with reading this post.  Do go out and study the candidates and their positions for yourself!  I don't have advertisements on this blog, so I don't owe it to anyone to do their work for them!!

Added later:

I guess we ought to talk about our strategy for making on-line contributions for these numerous candidates who are seeking support, since the Democrat NC has made these rules about who gets to appear on the debate platform in June.

I would really like to see and hear these people.  I would like to see both those who are running for President, as well as those who might make an awesome Vice President; some who might not satisfy our personal criteria for President could make wonderful running-mates for those who do.

Secondly, we need to look at these people from the point of view of whether they satisfy our own attitudes about civil discourse.  I watched a local debate last night, and though I felt that both candidates stuck very close to their script(s), I felt that the from-the-hip shots of the Democrat were a little more on-point than those of the Republican.  Both, however, seemed polite and restrained, which is a good thing.

First of all, I do not think anyone should support anyone, unless that candidate has some attribute that we are interested in, or can relate to, other than just wanting to be President.  Whatever office these people hold presently is presumably also important; it worries me that people are less interested in less-glamorous offices than they are in more glamorous ones.  In one sense, it is inevitable; after all, the US is the home of Hollywood and Fox News; sensation is our bread and butter.

The requirement that every contributor must declare their identity is a little off-putting.  In this age of hacking and identity theft, it is worrisome to surrender one's information to an organization that could easily be hacked by unscrupulous persons, such as Wikileaks or the Russians, or even the US government.

I sincerely hope that even all those who do not make it onto the debate platform get to make their pitch in a sort of losers debate at a different time.  Trying to drum up supporters via social media is still a chancy thing; social media is an unpredictable technology, too much in the control of advertising forces, and of course, the Russians, and other hacks and hackers.

Arch