Perhaps it is time conservatives lead the way for all Americans and get over our collective obsessions with cults of personality and the Imperial Presidency.
Constitutionally, the President’s duties are fairly limited in scope and should provide an easy framework for the ideal candidate.
1. The President is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. You don’t put a supply clerk or the mess attendant in charge of the Normandy offensive, so why should we put someone with limited real-world military experience in the position to be “the most powerful man in the world”?
For a time there was a real dearth of talented, driven, men willing to trade their military careers for a life in the fishbowl of national politics. That, however, should no longer be the case. There are plenty of men, and women, who are now in their late forties who served honorably and well in the military of the 1990’s.
2. The President is America’s figurehead for meeting with foreign leaders. Foreign policy experience is an incredibly important qualification for a President. You cannot craft the modern version of the Monroe Doctrine if you cannot name the countries bordering Afghanistan.
3. Head of the executive Branch. In a conservative dream world, this job category would be far easier, since most of the Executive Branch would be pared down or eliminated. What would be left must be handled with the kind of people skills and management outlook that a military career teaches. A good understanding of Constitutional law should be considered a bonus, since so many Executive Branch activities are on the.. shady.. side of Constitutional precedent.
4. Finally, the ideal candidate has to have a working knowledge of the “powers that be”. He, or she, has to know the top judges in the country in case he needs to make an appointment to the Supreme Court. He, or she, has to know that Harry Reid plays brinksmanship like a bloodsport. He, or she, has to know the best “players” to advise him, or her, and the best “players” to ignore or out-right banish.
We do not need an economic guru. Economic policy is the responsibility of the Congress. We do not NEED an attractive, telegenic, superstar. There are far more “craptastically ugly” Presidents than there are “hunk” Presidents. Furthermore, superstars have super-egos that must be petted and feted on a daily basis - usually through involvement in issues and policies the President has no business being involved in.
As for social conservatism: keep in mind that the President does not write laws governing abortion, what is taught in our schools, freedom of expression, or the legalities of marriage. The writing of those laws falls to the Congress and the States. The President can appoint judges that share his, or her, outlook on social issues, but aren’t we, as conservatives, against the practice of law via judicial fiat? We should be content with the man, or woman, possessing the moral fortitude to know what is right and what is wrong and showing that through the actions of his, or her, life. The signing, and/or repudiation, of empty pledges as a litmus test of Presidential candidates is just one more bit of populist theatre that has no business in the serious business of electing one of the country’s leaders.
And that, right there, is my parting thought. “ONE of the country’s leaders”. The Presidential election garners far more attention and money, than that of the people who directly affect our lives: school board members, state officials, and Congressmen. That needs to end. THAT is the real change we need.
Additionlly, the president is the executive of the Executive branch. As such, he sets policy. Setting policy includes deciding how to enforce the laws passed by Congress.
Case in point, Obama and Holder refuse to enforce DOMA. So the candidate’s social conservative values are essential in determining how he will enforce the law and whom he will appoint to interpret the law. All fiscal conservative values and no social conservative values is a disaster and so is all social/no fiscal conservative values. We must have a good combination of both sets of values.