The Company They Keep

The old saying goes, “You can tell a lot about a man, based on the company that he keeps.”  Recognizing that politicians cannot be experts in everything (just like the rest of us) is important.  That fact makes me more aware that, for those areas where they have weaknesses, they must choose a knowledgable person to advise them.  While this choice might be motivated by little more than selfish ambition, the best past and present examples of national leaders have obviously chosen their closest “disciples” with care.  The advisor’s traits matter to these politicians, visionaries and social reformers who have sought advice from people that they felt represented their values and that were knowledgable where the national leaders were not as strong.

Take, for instance, a candidate that is well-versed in foreign policy and domestic education issues, but lacking in Economics and Supreme Court Legislation.  The best candidate (read: human being) would seek the advice of a person that shares the same basic principles–but also could fill in the gaps with economical statistics and strategies, or share their knowledge of constitutional law.  If the campaign staff is filled with virtuous, talented people, then it stands to reason that the campaign will be run with virtue.  If the campaign staff filled with cut-throat or less-than-honest characters…well, you get the idea. 

I think that our presidential nominees’ choices–from their vice president, all the way through their list of campaign advisors–should be a good indicator of their judgement abilities.  The selection of Biden and Palin speak for themselves…Palin is a moron…but I searched the internet for a list of Obama and McCain’s staff. The only place I found them listed all together was on the BBC NEWS site, which was useful because the BBC listed the advisors side by side, in their respective roles.

View the post here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7642256.stm
…but there are two choices in particular, that caught my eye.

The McCain campain chose chief operating officer, Steve Schmidt, who worked with Karl Rove in George Bush’s election campaign team. The BBC states that he brings an “attacking style” to the campaign. This concerns me, because I’ve felt that the attacks on Obama have been shallow. Obama’s campaign chose his long-standing campaign manager, David Axelrod, who managed his Senate bid in 2004, and worked for John Edwards in the 2004 presidential election. The same Edwards that cheated on his cancer-stricken wife (although this might not be indicative of David’s qualities, read the first sentence of this post again).

In light of our foreign difficulties, Obama’s choice for chief foreign policy advisers are Susan Rice and Tony Lake, respectively assistant secretary of state for African affairs, and National Security Adviser under Clinton. Both opposed the Iraq war, although some critics will say that the Clinton Administration got us into this mess in the first place. I can’t really agree with that, though. Senator McCain’s advisors are cause for more concern–neo-Conservatives who back pre-emptive action, including chief foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann, and former CIA boss James Woolsey.

Make your own choice, keeping in mind that the candidates have chosen this group of people to help them get elected.  It is reasonable to assume Obama and McCain are actively using their advisors’ views and strategies, so be sure you agree with more of the campaign than the candidates themselves.

What is the main difference in Political Parties?

The difference between democrats and republicans is this:  For Democrats, the premise that “out of many, comes one,” reigns; on the other side of the partisan fence, the Republicans believe that “out of one, comes many.”

What is the evidence to suggest this? For one, if Republicans believe that, to stimulate large companies from Washington will “trickle down” to the masses–can it not be obvious that they truly believe in the goodness of humanity to a naive degree?  To think that out of “one” (government) will come prosperity for all, starting from the top down, will really occur in our selfish society is saddening.  We have seen this not to be true for so long.  It is a noble principle, but can this theory ever work in practice?

Democrats, maybe the more jaded of the two (made up of minorities, women, and others who have been denied the American Dream at some point), seek to create change by focusing on the masses.  The newest thinkers in the party have possibly gone too far in trying to please all in the broad spectrum of American viewpoints.  But essentially, the Democratic principle believes that for everyone to benefit, you have to improve life at the bottom of the barrel.  People have called the health plans of the Clinton administration and the current plan of Obama “socialist” in nature, but what is so terrible about making sure that all Americans would be able to live their lives without drowning in medical debt?  For example, even the average, middle-class family knows a possibility exists that one illness could jeopardize their children’s college fund.

If you pay attention to such statistical tools as the Bell Curve, you might notice that most of us will fall in the middle–with the least fortunate at the bottom end.  Where would you rather most political energy to be focused?  At the top, with the wealthiest few, or with the least of us?