In light of the recent State of the Union Address, I would like to make a political post. This will begin a series of posts that I will periodically write. The goal of the series is to outline the characteristics of a politician for whom I would love to vote. Most politicians for whom I vote, I vote for somewhat begrudgingly knowing that there are many of attributes of him/her that I truly do not appreciate. I often times have to choose the lesser of two (or three, or four) evils. So I will describe what kind of character and political stances that I would appreciate my close-to-perfect candidate to possess. I obviously cannot address all political stances in one single post, so I will break this up into several posts. I would love to hear your comments on each characteristic, but please save your comments on unrelated characteristics until they appear.
I would love to vote for a candidate who was in support of the specialization of our military. When I say the specialization of our military, I mean training all military personnel with elite standards. Every one of our military members and units should be Special Forces trained. By doing this, we could greatly increase our effectiveness and decrease our casualties. This would reduce the population of our military, but would greatly increase our productivity. If I were to go to war, or have my child go to war, I would want him to be as highly trained as possible. I would not want him/her to be seen by some commander as just a smokescreen for the more elite groups.
My close-to-perfect candidate would also highly advocate the use of drones or other technologies that removes our servicemen and women from danger. Advancement in technology should be sought after and implemented with the goal being to reduce the amount of times our forces have to go into high risk territory.
This almost ideal candidate would also demand that unilateral or American lead war should only be allowed if there is a very clear and present danger to the United States of America. My candidate would always have at the front of his mind this question when deciding whether or not to go to war: “Could I be proud my son/daughter died for this cause?” Reasons for any war can always be given; but if there are just as many reasons for not going to war, then the option for war should be nullified.
This candidate would also recognize that having a military presence in certain countries does not necessarily increase our nation’s security. Instead, my candidate would realize that our presence mostly inflames certain people groups to hate us. Again, if there is not a clear and present danger, and if just as many and good reasons can be given to withdraw, then withdrawal should be pursued.
Continuing, my candidate would demand that the other world powers put just as amount of effort into a war that is conducted due to world peace. Yes, war can be used to bring peace, if you do not believe this, then go back and read about this guy named Hitler. That might open your eyes a little bit. But if the world determines a specific threat is a threat not just to one country, but to all, then all countries have to put in equal efforts to dissolve the problem. America should no longer be the world’s peacekeeper. The world has relied on America way too much. It is time the world realized how much they owe our military.
Lastly, my candidate would demand that all military personnel be counselled on finances, the dangers of alcohol and other abusive substances, and be required to stay sober during his/her entire stay in the military. There must be much better mentorship in the military. I have seen so many young people go off to the military only to be introduced to a world of abusive drinking and other destructive behaviors. Good character should be taught as well as military tactics. Our men and women would be much better for it.
Obviously there could be much more discussed in this section, but this is where I will end and allow you to add to it in the comments.
Professionally Genuine and Honest (One Who Answers Questions)
Cut the political correctness and bull. While I would not want my candidate to be crass just because he is crass around his friends, I would want him to feel free to speak his mind in everyday terminology. I would like my candidate to call a spade a spade and to be real. I one time heard of a candidate who once he announced his candidacy, he started ending each of his speeches with, “God bless.” Someone asked him when he became religious. He replied with, “Once I entered politics.” That is bull.
Part of being genuine is answering questions fully instead of answering questions in a way that never actually answers the question. I have no idea how politicians can get away with this. Are most of our politicians really so dumb that they are unable to process a question and answer it accordingly? I do not believe so. Sure there may be a few that mindbogglingly got to an elected office and are actually incapable of this minor task, but I think most of them just are not genuine. They are too concerned with what people will think than with genuinely taking a stance.
Honesty is part of genuineness. It should be a foregone conclusion that honesty is expected of a candidate, but sadly, this characteristic is not always found in politicians. Honesty is not always found in many institutions. This is depressing. At my work, anytime we have to make a public announcement to correct something, I always suggest that we be perfectly honest. Take responsibility for your actions; doing so is tremendously important as it shows even those who disagree with you that you are trustworthy and will not try to mask your mistakes.
Well, there you have it, a political stance and a characteristic. We will come back in a subsequent post and discuss further. In the meantime, please let me know what you think.