posted
A talking head today was discussing Bloomberg (mayor of New York) and said why the press was so interested in him as a Presidential candidate--"He has proven his competence, and people are more interested in that than in ideology."
This got me wondering, are we?
I have often stated that President Bush appreciates the virtue of Loyalty, but Competence is a virtue as well. More importantly, competence breads loyalty, while incompetence breeds disloyalty--hence all the leaks, confidential info, and tell all books coming out of this administration.
Is the main cause of the President's, and of Congress's low approval ratings not a disagreement with ideology but with incompetence?
But then I came up with a more interesting question. Are you more interested in a competent politician or one who shares your ideology?
Would you approve of a President who could end the war in Iraq in a sound, safe, and sane manner even if they were on the other side of the abortion issue as you?
Would you approve of a President who could create a more streamlined, efficient, and competent FEMA even if they were on the opposite side of the Gay marriage debate than you?
Would you approve of a President who could improve the health care system, not making it free for all, but making it work for all, even if he was on the other side of the Immigration question than you?
Are you ready to forgive a politicians differences in ideology, or theology, if they can get done the things we really need them to get done?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would depend on the way the issues of the war, FEMA and Health care stack up against the issues of abortion, SSM, and Immigration.
An effective leader who opposes your ideology could bring about changes in the country that you feel are for the worst. In a certain scenario, I might vote for a politician I disagree with, if I believe that he can not only be a more competent politician, but a cleaner, non-corrupt president.
EDIT: I could never cast a vote without accepting parts of an ideology I oppose, because no party or politician represents everything I want.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure your question is practical. Nobody can know before hand that their candidate would be able to do any of the things you propose. The candidate may have novel ideas that some people think would be effective, but that's no different than how things are today. Nobody seems to agree though on what would be the most effective way of doing it. If there was some magical way that everybody could agree that Candidate X's plan was the perfect solution, it would very quickly become non-unique to that candidate.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Is the main cause of the President's, and of Congress's low approval ratings not a disagreement with ideology but with incompetence?"
I think the only people that would answer the former are those who are actually in agreement with the current administration's actions.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is why I didn't say, Vote For. I said Approve Of. In other words, they have major ideological differences than you, but once elected, they succeed in doing things not based on Ideology.
In other words, are more people upset that President Bush got us into the war in Iraq, or that he led an incompetent post-invasion occupation.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stalin was highly competent at mass executions. John Q. Kleptocrat in Africa is highly competent at robbing the national treasury. On the other hand, an incompetent good man can be OK by getting a decent staff, unless he's incompetent at that too. Competence loses big with me.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't have to agree with everything a man says, just the right things
Besides, given the last 17(or so?) years, I think the decision ended up being the lesser of two evils (given the Russian model of reforms and the Chinese model), but that is perhaps a whole different can of alternative-history worms.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The current administration is competent at many things.
Competence is not an across-the-board quality. What turns it into a virtue or a vice is one's priorities and standards.
I'm quite certain that falls into the 'ideology' camp, making this a super-easy question for me. I'd rather have a person who was very hit-or-miss in trying to do things I want them to do, than have a person who was reliably capable at helping out those interests I have no desire to see helped out.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
