A First Foray into the Political Arena

Some of my fondest memories from my educational experience via liberal arts studies at Washington & Jefferson College are of reading and discussing collections of essays on issues central to life. As a part of my major in Information Technology Leadership, students were appropriately required to read several essays about leadership: what it is and what it's not from different people in different places at different times. One of the messages to which I've returned at several points over the past few years is that leadership is not administration: leaders will forever face the demands of daily details, but to continue to lead, they must free themselves of the urgent to pursue what is ultimately and ideally important.

It is with that understanding of leadership that I enter the political arena of 2008 - I seek a President who has the ability to overcome all of the fear and red tape in Washington in order to achieve radical change. I admit that I am a youthful idealist who is not well-read when it comes to politics - the majority of this story is based upon research of the Boston Herald's candidate profiles.

The profiles contain information about the candidates' stances on abortion, capital punishment, education, energy and the environment, experience, gay marriage, health care, immigration, Iraq, social security, stem cell research, and financial issues. We have some options for our approach:

1) The extreme cop-out: compare the parties and one-line issues - Republican or Democrat, pro-life or pro-choice, for or against capital punishment, for or against gay marriage - and choose according to your own stances. How you can assume that anyone agreeing with you on those four issues is qualified to lead the country, I have no idea.

2) The stance comparison: read information about the candidates' stances and vote for the candidate who wants the same things you do. This approach applied in a very general fashion tends toward the first approach (i.e. "he/she doesn't want to rely on foreign oil - neither do I; he/she doesn't want to raise taxes - neither do I; he/she doesn't like the way that the United States mishandled Iraq - neither do I; gee, since all of the candidates seem to say these things, I'll just choose by the stances on abortion and gay marriage"). This approach applied in a very specific fashion ignores the reality that, no matter what candidate is emphasizing, if he/she makes it into the White House, a number of things are going to be dropped in order for the new president to carry the weight of the administrative and other duties. It also doesn't take into account the necessary role of the president to lead the country through unexpectedly turbulent waters at certain points.

3) The leadership evaluation: read information about the candidates' stances and consider the candidates' approach to the issue. Look beyond what the candidates want to accomplish to how they want to reach their goals. Do they pick their battles and choose their paths wisely? When the unexpected happens, will you trust their decision-making? Will you trust them to represent America well amidst trial and tribulation?

After examining the profiles of the four top candidates - Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney - I give my support to Barack Obama. The following explains both what I like about Obama's stances and some concerns I have about those held by the others.

Education: The system doesn't need more regulation, it doesn't need more tests, it doesn't need more programs, and it certainly doesn't need more criticism. What it needs most is money, Obama's stance emphasizes that. Giving students a better learning environment with building improvements and people more motivation to become teachers by increasing pay rates is an important start. I don't believe that a standardized test can adequately evaluate student progress or teaching quality, so I like his lack of emphasis on them.

Energy/Environment: I appreciate Obama's goals in this area because they are realistic - they reflect that drastic change is necessary but that it won't be easy or quick. More important than immediate change is irreversible change.

Health Care: The place to begin health care reformation is with those who are not insured. If the federal government can effectively implement an affordable health care plan for the uninsured, the first step towards a national healthcare program will have been taken. Again, I appreciate the goal of radical reform but appropriate acknowledgement that it will not be immediate. Giving families control of their own health-care dollars is nonsensical - then it's no longer health insurance but a savings account.

Iraq: The United States has played an overly-important role in Iraq for long enough - as a part of transitioning out of Iraq and more fully allowing it to participate in the community of nations, a convention with the United Nations is entirely appropriate. I fail to see any way increasing troop strength and defense spending will have a positive impact.

Social Security: The "to each his own" philosophy permeating the attempts to privatize healthcare is not necessarily right - if well-organized, the federal government should be able to make Social Security and Medicare work.

Stem-Cell Research: I disagree that embryonic stem cell research should be legal.

Taxes: One of the most blatant problems with Obama is that his proposed reforms cost more than his tax and budget stances will bring in. I'm very much in favor of not further complicating tax law with additional credits and charges, though. I wish more politicians were in favor of drastically simplifying the ways in which the federal government receives funds.

Again, after looking at not only the goals but also the methods of Obama, I would choose to vote for him before any of the other main candidates at this time. Mostly it just feels good for me to take time to digest and conclude in the area of politics, something I haven't done before. I would encourage you to take time to do the same.