The Litmus Test for Choosing a President

The litmus test for choosing a president can be summed up in one word- character. No presidential candidate can possibly be qualified for every aspect of the job. It's just too big and too complex. There are more variables than there is room on a candidate's resume for bullet pointed accomplishments.

I'm not really interested in whether a candidate has good business savvy. Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay were both accomplished businessmen, but their character flaws are what did them in and brought down the Enron empire. Harry Truman was a horrible business man, but history remembers him as being a pretty darn good president although he wasn't thought to be at the time.

What about foreign policy experience? Yes, it would be nice for the next president to be able to pick Bosnia Herzegovina or Bangladesh out on a map. It would be really nice too if he could correctly pronounce the names of the countries. But the presidency isn't a geography class and we shouldn't pick the next president based on foreign policy experience alone. This is one aspect of the job where on-the-job training is pretty common in our history. Look, John Kennedy had no real foreign policy experience when he became president, but he looked down the barrel of the Soviet gun and never blinked despite facing the threat of nuclear war. Ronald Reagan had no foreign policy experience either and I guess you know the rest of that Russian story- sorry, Mikhail. That kind of unflinching nerve is a test of character.

When you go to the polls in November, think about who has the best leadership qualities, who has the best judgment, and whom you would trust under the worst case scenario. We're not conducting a popularity contest or looking for a guy that looks the best on stage. If that were the case, I'd recommend voting for George Clooney. If you look at character as the defining criteria for choosing the next president, then pulling the lever in the polling booth, is pretty easy.