In this unusually polite Pit thread, qts and others say that it’s more important for a leader to be of good character and decisive, and not be “pushed around on the international stage” than to have the “right” views on the issues. In other words, qts seems to prefer a President who decisively does the wrong thing than a President who indecisively does the right thing, where “right” and “wrong” are defined according to qts’s own definitions.
This I don’t get at all. I’m not even sure what qts means by being “pushed around on the international stage” in any concrete sense, I don’t see why it’s so good to be of “good character”, whatever that means, and even if I did it certainly couldn’t possibly be any more important than what he was actually going to do while in office. However, understanding what qts means and why he thinks that way would probably help me understand much about my fellow humans that’s now completely incomprehensible to me.
I therefore throw the question open. What do you want in a leader? Agreement with you on the issues, or good “character” and decisiveness?
To me, the issues are more important. People liked Bill Clinton’s position on the issues but they didn’t like the affair. I agree with John Kerry on 90% or so of the issues and that is why I’ll vote for him.
Tom Clancy implied in one of his books that character was more important, because POTUS has his finger on the ‘button’ and you want to make sure that such a person has the kind of character to make the right decision.
I agree with that, but I also feel that one’s stand on many issues indicates one’s character to a great extent. Thus I tend to be an issue voter.
[hijack]What I don’t understand is how a former drunken frat-boy, whose daddy (and friends) have bought him every position he’s ever held (and he’s still managed to fail at most), who admittedly doesn’t read, and has taken more vacation and campaign trips than any president in history, has achieved a reputation for any character other than that of spoiled rich-kid.[/hijack]
Hmmm, a rare sighting of the reverse- or un-Pitting. Interesting
Since, in my experience, so many people seem to define “character” as either “stubborn refusal to modify one’s stance based on new information” or “blind obedience to dogma”, I have no choice but to say that how a leader deals with issues is by far the more important factor.
I suspect this will quickly turn into a referendum on which candidate has the greater character, but I’ll my opinion to myself for the moment.
I’d really like to be able to avoid this kind of thing in this thread, if at all possible. I’d like to debate the question in my original post, not the specific merits of Bush and Kerry.
I think they are equally important. I want the politician to focus on the issues we focus on, but I also want a politician to be honest and accountable about what they do. Issues will get a politician elected, and character will keep him elected.
A president’s character only matters to me as far as it affects the people of the US. Lying to involve the country in a war is a problem, whereas cheating on his wife, cheating on his taxes, drug use or other vices is not. I don’t think a man who screws around with interns is more likely to push the “button” nor that past drug use makes him untrustworthy or unstable.
Character is such an intangible quality. It is seen through the lens of each individual’s experience. It’s hard to measure up to a standard which varies from person to person.
As I said in the pit thread, issues are far more important to me.
For example, I agree with Kerry on many more issues than with Bush. Even if the characterization of Kerry as a flip-flopper was completely true, I’d still rather have a president with a 50 percent chance of making decisions in ways I agree with that a person who has 0 percent chance.
It’s these decisions that might effect me. If somebody I love gets killed in a war I think was unnecessary, for example, it’s little comfort that the person who started the war showed strong unwavering character in the face of those who opposed it.
Conversely, if a leader showed strong character opposing what I thought was a necessary war, that also would be little comfort when the enemy I thought was a threat attacked us.
What really squicks my shit is when the media pundits tell us that Bush wins votes from the common average Joe Schmo because he’s supposedly “the kind of guy you’d want to have a beer with.” Man, that is SO deeply fucked up on so many levels I don’t know where to begin. For one thing, it should be clear to you, Mr. Average Joe Schmo, that you have not a snowball’s chance in hell of ever being invited to “have a beer” with Bush. He does not give a fuck about you and your kind. He only hangs out with his filthy rich buddies.
I do look at a person’s position on various issues. However, I care more about which candidate appears better able to handle whatever situations arise while they’re in office. Issues change.
For example: rather than “where do they stand/how did they vote on Iraq,” I’m more concerned with “how well will this person work with congress and the international community,” “do they appear willing to commit to force but only where needed after carefully considering all the ramifications,” and “where do they stand on the trade off between domestic freedoms and national security.”
I’m not sure whether that’s an issues or character judgement. Certainly a candidate’s stand on current issues can give you insight into how they’d stand on those in the future. But I’m also concerned with their general philosophy, personality, and intelligence. I don’t really care if they had extra marital affairs or partied too hard in college.
I’m not really sure where issues end and character begins. As some have said, a candidates stands on the issues and how they arrive at these stands shows you a good bit about their character.
I am also a big believer that a person’s general patterns in the past are a good predicter of how they will act in the future. For example, one of the few threads that I have actually started here on the SDMB (I post a lot but seldom start new threads) was back in 2000 when I asked for people to provide evidence in the past of any case where Bush had “not danced with those who brung him,” i.e., when he truly went against the wishes of the monied corporate interests behind him. I can’t remember receiving any true example in response. I think this showed a lot both about Bush’s character and how he would stand on the issues. And, really nothing he has done since has in my view deviated from this.
Nonsense! Don’t base your assumptions on bogus word definitions. Good character is essential as the presidency is ultimately a position of moral leadership. A good working definition of character is the sum total of traits that make up the individual, to include discipline, honesty, brevity, hard work, candor, commitment, etc. The Scouts have a good working definition in their creed or whatnot.
Why would you make such an assertion? A citizen’s character is on display every day whether they are a politician, sports figure, musician, religious leader, civic leader, etc., it’s vitally important for young people especially to learn at an early age what character is about, and do them a great disfavor by intimating that character is “intangible.” It’s VERY tangible.
By the way, after reading the Pit thread in question, I’ve come to the conclusion that qts is using the word character in a completely bizarre way that seems to in many ways be the very opposite of character. As near as I can make out, there are a few vague issues that qts feels so strongly about like “anti-communism”, the U.S. not getting pushed around, etc., that he is basically looking for people who share the views on these issues. And, it makes little difference to him whether they are willing to pursue their goals by illegal means (like Iran-Contra) as long as the end is good in his view.
If that is his definition of character (and it certainly seems to be how he has fleshed it out in that thread), I think the whole thing is basically a “canard”. qts isn’t really interested in character in any definition of the word that I would find reasonable.
In a representative democracy, I want elected leaders who will vote for or support issues that I agree with. I don’t give a rat’s ass about their “character.” I’m not even sure what that word means. For a lot of people it seems to mean “agrees with me.” I get the impression that there are some who think that character is defined as a narrow set of religious or sexual values. If a guy gets a blow job, he lacks “character.” If he lies his way into a war but doesn’t cheat on his wife he does have character. It’s all just nonsense.
I suppose it’s helpful if the guy is not corrupt in his official duties, if he doesn’t lie about anything important or sell himself out completely to other interests.
As long as he votes the right way as a legislator or signs and vetoes the right things as an executive, he could be Caligula in his personal life for all I care.
What I meant was that not everyone has the same definitions of what is “right” and “wrong.” For example, it wouldn’t bother me one whit to discover that a candidate had had a child out of wedlock, but some people would see this as morally wrong. Many people think that it’s essential that a candidate have religious faith-- I don’t. Some people would rule out a candidate because of past substance abuse–I wouldn’t. So, if there is no single, clearly defined moral standard, how can “character” be tangible?
Secondly, I agree that it is important for young people to learn how to be good, productive members of society, but I don’t think that “looking up” to political or entertainment figures should be a significant part of it. Both of these groups are terrible examples.
Nor do I agree that a person’s public persona is an honest indicator of their character. Anyone can behave themselves for an hour or so, and leave a great impression on those with which they come in contact. It’s what happens when the door is closed and the shades drawn that truly shows a person’s character.
But what about someone who goes one way then the other? For those that haven’t read the Pit thread, I gave the example of the Foot and Mouth epidemic in the UK. There were two options (apart from doing nothing): wholescale vaccination or wholesale slaughter. I preferred the former, but they chose the latter, despite large-scale opposition (hey, we killed millions of animals). But I could understand why they did it, and respected that. Had they flip-flopped the damage would have been vastly worse.
Similarly, Bush and Blair have a clear idea of what they want for Iraq, with which I disagree; I understand it, even admire it, but they’re steadfastly going for it and not letting themselves get derailed.
When push comes to shove , when things really matter, I want a leader whose decision I can trust and respect, even if I disagree with it. Sure I might vote him or her out over it at the next election if someone of sufficient character and better (for me) policies stands against them.