Why is it that so much of the argument around Iraq is about four years ago? I love Tim Russert and think his show is great, but every Sunday the start of every conversation is defined by “did you make the right decision back then and if you knew then what you know now would you have voted the same way?”
While Monday morning quarterbacking may be a fun “what if” scenario, and serve to help us collectively learn from our mistakes, it doesn’t help us define who would be a good commander and chief. Today it seems that all of these candidates for President in 2008 so far seem to define themselves most by “what was my position on a particular issue at a particular time (the war) and do I think I was right or wrong?”
In my mind, this is the entirely wrong criteria to choose a President. It’s a bit like evaluating a stock. You can look at “trailing earnings” as an indicator of a particular company’s past performance, but it in no way guarantees future performance. And you would never look at a single quarter’s results. What matters is the future outlook. This is why a company can announce a growth in earnings but have it’s stock go down.
A better indicator of a Presidential candidate’s future success is a more in depth analysis of his or her values and character. A look at a lifetime of decisions provide evidence of a person’s character, looking at a single decision, even a big one, does not qualify as rigorous analysis. Show me a single great leader that at one time or another has not made the wrong call on a big decision.
The continual harping on “what would you have done four years ago and would you do the same thing now,” is only serving to teach politicians that they can never be wrong. What we do want in a President is someone who, given something they perceive as a clear and present danger (rightly or wrongly)…does something!
While Monday morning quarterbacking may be a fun “what if” scenario, and serve to help us collectively learn from our mistakes, it doesn’t help us define who would be a good commander and chief. Today it seems that all of these candidates for President in 2008 so far seem to define themselves most by “what was my position on a particular issue at a particular time (the war) and do I think I was right or wrong?”
In my mind, this is the entirely wrong criteria to choose a President. It’s a bit like evaluating a stock. You can look at “trailing earnings” as an indicator of a particular company’s past performance, but it in no way guarantees future performance. And you would never look at a single quarter’s results. What matters is the future outlook. This is why a company can announce a growth in earnings but have it’s stock go down.
A better indicator of a Presidential candidate’s future success is a more in depth analysis of his or her values and character. A look at a lifetime of decisions provide evidence of a person’s character, looking at a single decision, even a big one, does not qualify as rigorous analysis. Show me a single great leader that at one time or another has not made the wrong call on a big decision.
The continual harping on “what would you have done four years ago and would you do the same thing now,” is only serving to teach politicians that they can never be wrong. What we do want in a President is someone who, given something they perceive as a clear and present danger (rightly or wrongly)…does something!
No comments:
Post a Comment