Beyond politics….but why?
It’s not a question of whether we care about the candidates’ personalities - it’s a question of whether we should.
Stanley Fish posted this on his New York Times blog this morning - an idea that will hopefully stir some debate about the above predicament.
Apparently CBS News will be quizzing the candidates about their personal beliefs, and apparently Stanley Fish doesn’t like it:
“Katie Couric is now asking the presidential candidates 10 questions designed (declares the CBS News Web site) to ‘go beyond politics and show what really makes them tick.’
“Already I’m suspicious.
“Why, when the office the candidates seek is a pre-eminently political one, does it make sense to go ‘beyond politics’? (It is as if you were looking for an office manager and decided to go ‘beyond organizational skills’ by inquiring into the applicants’ tastes in books or music.)
“Beyond politics means beyond policies. Rather than asking, ‘Would you favor a flat tax rate?’ or ‘Do you propose to provide universal health coverage, and if so, how?’…Couric will ask, ‘When was the last time you lost your temper.’
“…Integrity — the quality of standing up for the same values in every situation no matter whom you’re speaking to — is probably not a qualification for navigating the treacherous and ever-shifting waters of domestic and international diplomacy…And if character were really everything, candidates would be judged by their relationships with family and friends (Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton might not fare too well if that were the measure) rather than by their ability first to recognize, and then to deal with, the many problems facing the nation.”
With the question in 2004 of “moral values” being the most important “issue” for voters, and already an investment this election cycle in values debates - Fish asks, “Do you start with the inner landscape of the individual and project outward to his or her performance in office, or do you leave the inner weather of the candidates’ spiritual and psychological health to their therapists and pastors?”
This type of philosophical argument is rarely discussed. It is time to reflect deeply into ourselves and the ideas that exist in the political environment to ask the question: what makes the best president and how does that effect my one vote?
it seems to me that the motivation for asking questions that are ‘beyond politics’ may be to get answers that the politically uninformed can use to make decisions (on their level). such questions may be helpful as a secondary resource of information or as a round of preliminary questioning but not entirely valuable in the context of a presidential debate proper.
I notice while taking your quiz and then reviewing the politician answer, that while you try to be non-partisan (which I think is noble and you fairly accurately achieve), you fail to be non-pundit or non-sensationalist. The problem with this is that whereas your survey is good and fairly accurate (I mean, I would never vote for X-Candidate even through I like most of what s/he stands for), it still leads voters away from our ideals - I mean our ideals as Americans who value free thought and innovative ideas. When is the last time the Federalist papers were actually read? When is the last time we embraced a thought (say, equality?) as a nation?
And finally, how does your website help move us away from sensationalism and toward an honest discussion of “WHAT IS BEST FOR AMERICA?” I’ll tell you - Education. Figure out which candidate cares about fixing education and you’ve found the woman or man that is worth our time.
ANON (if that is your real name :)):
An interesting comment, and I don’t disagree. But what are you referring to when you say this site fails to be “non-pundit or non-sensationalist.” Your issue here seems to be more with the positions of the candidates than with the site, which just reproduces what these politicians say as accurately as possible. Perhaps I’m misreading your point though?
I would like to see a question under the “Abortion” topic that asks “when does human life begin?”
My difficulty in taking your poll is that I’m generally “in favor” of issue X, but I don’t necessarily trust all the candidates to implement it effectively.
I think of the US as a giant organization/company, with the President as CEO. Sometimes the background pieces help to shed light on more amorphous qualities like “leadership style” and ability to bring warring factions together.
While the info you provide here is great dataset for making a decision, it’s hard to use to predict how a candidate would react to an unexpected new development (imagine asking about 9/11 in 1999). The in-to-out method appears more useful in that arena.
On the whole, though, I agree strongly that the election coverage has left me distressingly short on information about the candidates (as opposed to the campaigns).
Listen. Do not have an opinion while you listen because frankly, your opinion doesn?t hold much water outside of Your Universe. Just listen. Listen until their brain has been twisted like a dripping towel and what they have to say is all over the floor.