Deciding who to support - it's tricky

A good man or woman may not make a good president.

We're so used to bad people in govt., individuals who seem to lack any moral compass or commitment to traditional values, that when a truly good person comes along and says, "I'll be your president" we quickly and enthusiastically support their efforts. Finally, someone who shares our views on core truths!

Once this dynamic gains momentum it can seem almost disloyal to question that individual's suitability to occupy the Oval Office. "How can you not get behind a clearly good, virtuous candidate?" The implication can be that non-support for the candidate amounts to going soft on the moral standards they embody.

But the job requirements for President of the United States go beyond being a virtuous person. The position requires more than great intellectual ability and trustworthiness. While we'd put those characteristics high on the list there are others that also need to appear. The President becomes our country's leader and, especially in times of crisis and when setting our national course, needs to have the ability to inspire, to set a vision, and get others to sign on. It's hard to define, but President Kennedy exemplified it, and clearly possessed the combination of charisma, eloquence, and persuasiveness that, for example, led us to the moon.

Our President must also have a broad grasp of the dynamics of a federal government. A representative democracy is a complex mess of competing interests on Main Street, never mind between the branches of government and the political parties. Add in the special interests of large groups of people and industries (face it, we'll never be rid of them and you're probably part of more than one such group) and a President better have some experience and skill at working within the system to get those varied and competing interests to move in the direction he wants. "Savvy politician" isn't a criticism, it's a qualification essential to the office. Like it or not, that's a skill learned from experience at lower levels of govt. Even the ultimate outsider, Ronald Reagan, came to Washington with experience as president of the Screen Actors Guild (try leading that group!) and as Governor of CA (a whole state of odd balls).

We could go on, but you get the picture. A good person may make a bad President because they lack the requisite skill set for the position. I may admire everything about them, but unfortunately it's not that simple. Character and an inspiring personal history isn't enough.

So, can a bad person make a good President? Ah, there's an interesting question. Time has taught us that President Kennedy was, on a personal level, seriously flawed, and his political policies and priorities were not anything I could support. But his legacy as a powerful and effective leader only grows, and not just because he was assassinated. So, it's a tricky proposition. Ideally we'd have a candidate of strong moral character, who possesses in great measure the skills required for the office, and also holds positions on important issues that we can support.

We'll probably never find all three things together in full measure, at least not this side of the Messianic Kingdom. Until then we have to evaluate any individual candidate's qualifications in each area, weighting those dimensions with careful deliberation and, yes, research.

We've got our work cut out for us, and only a year to get it done.