This is not the question everyone is asking, right? They’re not even asking “Who are you voting for.” (Should be “whom” but that form of “who” is getting phased out…) It is “Who are you voting against.” This is a bad idea. I am afraid for our country, not for the reasons you think, but for the simple fact that we vote for the person most likely to win based on looks and perceived personality traits. We are not voting for what people think, what their stances are on certain issues, their philosophy of government and its place in every day life.
Let’s look at this approach in parts.
- We are voting for the person most likely to win. That is like going to a race and betting on the winning horse because it is the winning horse and has the best press coverage. Anything can happen on the track or before the race! You don’t know for certain which horse is going to win! Imagine if the other horses had a smear campaign against the winning horse. Would your perception change? Your only concern should be which horse can run the fastest. You’d do your research based on answering that question. What this changes is this: There is no horse that is designated a “winning horse” and so you must base your decision on which one you think can run the fastest over this particular track in this particular weather with this particular jockey against this field of horses.
- We are voting for the person based on looks: Does he/she look and sound presidential? On what basis is this trait defined. What does “presidential” look like? Does the person wear $1000 suits? Can they mix with people whose titles are King and Queen? Do they look like commanders in chief among Military heads of state? Is their hair and make-up professionally done? Do they look like the posters? How about the tone of the voice? Is it nasal, is it too high, is it too slow or fast? Is this person multilingual? Does he/she speak English with an accent? How large is the vocabulary? Here’s the thing we need to know. Not all that stuff listed above, but this: Does this person know what he/she is talking about?! Does this person have the information on the policies in place to make good decisions? Does this person have the information and understand the dynamics of the countries around the world and how those affect the US? Does this person understand the diplomatic jobs he/she assigns to the ambassadors? Does this person understand the economic repercussions of the policies enacted to enhance our country’s economy and how that affects the economies of our allies and enemies? We have to ask ourselves, “Does the president’s hair style matter when he/she stands toe to toe with heads of state and asserts the United States’ position on trade, human rights, and military aggression?” My favorite show, NCIS, has a main character who sports a bad haircut and JC Penny suits with a standard T-shirt. When he goes up against heads of state and really bad cartel leaders and criminals, he has a stare and an approach that lets them know he is not messing around. If you read the Jack Ryan novels by Clancy, you see the same traits. If you look back at Eisenhower or Roosevelt, you see the same traits. Looking and sounding “presidential” doesn’t make them presidential material. It makes them actors in a very large theater. It makes them puppets of those people who CAN stand toe to toe with heads of state, and sometimes, those people are not thinking of the American people when they pull the strings on the puppet with the Presidential designation.
- We are voting for the person with the best personality traits. Is this the person you would invite to a dinner party? Is this the person you would have babysitting your kids? Does this person’s personality reflect your own, or would you find yourself apologizing for the behavior or comments. People should not have to apologize for their president. Let’s think about this. One of the biggest violations of human rights is human trafficking. It is the demeaning and cruel selling of people to be slaves to those with deep enough pockets. The victims are largely female, but both genders are involved. If you have a history of mistreating and demeaning women as sex toys, how can you demand that women’s rights be upheld in those countries that engage in human trafficking? Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? If you support women’s rights to the point of saying the unborn are not babies, how can you champion children’s rights? Does that mean these creatures are not human babies until they breathe? What if you don’t support women’s rights according to the law? How can you then berate cultures that relegate women to property? You cannot support both sides, but whichever side you choose, you have to be faithful to that side. The personality is in direct relation to the character of the person. Go back to the earlier posts on the traits of a leader. We are looking for a person of good character, not a person of good personality. You can be a person with a great personality and still have a bad character. Many serial killers are very charismatic and draw people in with their magnetic personality. Think about that.
What are the issues in this campaign? What do people talk about? Does Donald have a foul mouth? Does Hillary have email challenges? Those all go to character. In order to vote responsibly, you have to know what each candidate thinks is important and how each, as president, would effect a change if necessary or promote programs.
WE ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE, BUT IT COMES WITH A RESPONSIBILITY! You must understand the issues and know how each candidate stands on those issues. You must take the character of the candidate into consideration. You should not vote if you are not educated in these areas. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!!!