When I was in high school, my fellow students would usually go for electing a popular person for president of student council with few ideas beyond getting better meals in the cafeteria. At the time girls didn't run for that office, but the winning candidate almost always had to be totally likable. Only once in a while did my classmates elect a thoughtful person who, besides being likeable, was interested in greater goals, perhaps more school spirit or better ways to operate study halls.
I've been thinking a lot about this upcoming presidential election. Of course it concerns me as I'm sure it concerns any conscientious American. Here are my thoughts:
1) Which is more important: a) electing a candidate who knows his strengths and weaknesses and includes the opinions of others in his decision making or b) electing one who solely runs the show and who punishes those who do not agree with him?
2) How has history played out in the past? Is it the strong leader who allies himself with his enemies and mirrors many of their tactics more likely to be on the winning side? Is playing along with the enemy advantageous in any way? I keep thinking about how in World War II Russia first allied with Germany and then switched and became associated with the Allies and helped us win the war and how Winston Churchill's England, standing alone against adversity, rallied his countrymen.
3) How a candidate runs his campaign is a good indicator of how the chosen candidate will run the country. My own feeling is that the choices are
---A candidate who spends his/her energy on holding a tight rein on his/her party and buttonholes anyone who doesn't go along with his/her current team, who insists on a party member going along to get alone and is the sole spokesman for his/her candidacy.
---A candidate who tries to ameliorate his/her party's differences and demonstrates to those members of his/her party that, with compromise, there is something for everyone that he/she can make happen, who hires competent individuals in each parts of the organization to get out his/her message.
---A candidate who believes that an election campaign should be a forum for the many rather than just the establishment.
4) Finally and most importantly, a campaign is about the citizens. Are those who just personally have an axe to grind going to choose the winner or those who are looking out for the benefit of all of us?
