The Next Great American President

The United States of America needs a great president. Not one who is great in his own mind. Not one who merely has a great mind. But one who has robust ideas for how to foster the greatness of America through the office of the president, as it was intended. If that person exists and is able to run for office, here is a script of what they should say during the campaign…if they truly believe in the script. These thoughts are structured around a couple of principles. First, that it is more important to be actually correct than it is to be politically correct. And second, that no matter how much we wish that the circumstances of an issue were different than they are, reality usually kicks in eventually.

On the Greatness of America and the Reason He/She is Running:

I believe that the United States of America is a great nation and the greatest of nations and that, so far as the actions of people influence outcomes, a strong America is the best hope for peace, stability, and prosperity for all the peoples of the world.

I am not running to make America different than its classic ideals. I am not running to make America think and act like me. I am running to make America stronger by maximizing the effectiveness of the Office of President as it was meant to be. Not by posturing my administration’s role into a sort of secondary layer of the Judicial Branch or the Legislative Branch, but by fulfilling the scope of the President’s duties as prescribed in the Constitution. Enforcing the laws of the land, protecting our people and the nation’s interests, and managing the Federal government in an efficient and effective manner.

On Campaign Promises in General:

It is no surprise to anyone that campaign promises in our culture take on a fiction all their own. Most of them are easily made, often ambiguous, and soon forgotten. The reality is that a presidential candidate can only make honest predictions of what they themselves will try to accomplish. A candidate can champion a change in the law, but it is the Senators and Representatives, acting on behalf of the people who must craft and approve the laws for the President to sign. To promise otherwise is misguided and dishonest. Further, the candidate can lay out areas of special focus to be pursued in their term of office, but we all know that the twists and turns of national and global events often dictate the problems that must receive the most attention. To suggest otherwise is to miss the realities of our world.

What the president can do, and what I promise to do if elected is to work tirelessly to take a leader/manager approach to government. To reduce duplicated efforts, to reduce pointless efforts, and to maximize the value received by every tax dollar.

On National Defense:

No nation on earth possesses the variety, lethality, capacity, and flexibility of forces and weapons possessed by the United States. For the people of the United States, this is both a blessing and responsibility. While our defensive resources are often used to help others in “military operations other than war,” the primary purpose of these resources is actual defense.

There is a great balancing act that goes on continuously between trying to forecast what forces and weapons might be needed in the future and what is a reasonable amount of preparation. The goal, of course, is to be ready for any threat while never actually having to fire a shot. Why then do we find ourselves involved in so many conflicts?

So many factors play a part in military strategy. Much of the strategy is based on perceived threat. We hope that a bad actor will engaged in self restraint in the face of a threat of military force. Any time we appear to (or actually do) vacillate, send mixed signals, or flat out fail to stand by our word, we make the threat of military force less real and less believable.

People occasionally compare the United States to the Roman Empire. Indeed, at the time of the forming of the United States, the question of why the Roman Empire failed was a very popular debate topic among historians in western society. People wanted to know why it happened so they could then speculate on whether such a thing could ever happen again…the failure of a dominant “global” government followed by an oppressive decline such as the “dark ages.” I believe that there are many more dissimilarities between our nation and the Roman Empire than some would suggest. However, I am struck by an interesting comment about military strength made by Edward Gibbon in Volume One of his classic six volume work on the decline of the Roman Empire. In describing the status of the Roman military at a time when the Empire was at its strongest and actually sought to grow no further, Gibbon wrote, “The terror of the Roman arms added weight and dignity to the moderation of the emperors. They preserved peace by a constant preparation for war; and while justice regulated their conduct, they announced to the nations on their confines, that they were as little disposed to endure, as to offer an injury.” No mixed signals there. Interestingly, Volume One was published in 1776.

On Foreign Affairs

Modern strategists fret profusely over how much interaction is appropriate, necessary and justifiable between the United States and other countries. The answer, specifically, is primarily dependent on the other country in question. But in the general case, the determining factors include: Is the other country friend or foe; what is their economic status; what is the extent of U. S. based business there; can peace be secured or wars avoided by our interaction; what’s in our best interest; do we have a duty there. Ultimately we may ask, “what right have we to pursue our interests there?”

To ensure peace and liberty at home, the United States must do what it can to promote freedom elsewhere. Perhaps not every country is ready at every moment to progress to American style democracy, or even a constitutional form of government. But every country can and ought to improve the lives and fortunes of its citizens in a fair and equitable fashion. The United States should work to foster those improvements. And we need not fret over whether we have the right to do so. In this matter we should stand on this principle stated by Martin Luther King Jr., “no American, is an outsider when he goes to any community to aid the cause of freedom and justice.”

On Economics and Taxes

The “lemonade stand” analogy doesn’t go very far in explaining our complex economy. There are many, many factors that play a mathematical role in determining the health of our financial system. And not all the factors are linearly related. In fact, it seems like most are not. So, most of the time, we really need to focus on the basics.

Of paramount importance is the strength of small business. It often said that small business is the primary engine of our economy. Why then do we make it so difficult for people to start small businesses? We so frequently hear some statistic about how many small businesses fail in their second year. But what is so intellectually infuriating is to hear so many accountants say that the reason that they fail is not because of poor sales or some other traditional component of success. Rather it is because they can’t figure out, and thus, get behind on employment taxes. Then, back taxes and penalties drown them.

The entire tax code needs massive simplification, but let’s make a commitment to work on support for small businesses first.

On Border Control

Let’s control the border. As an issue, it doesn’t have to be tied to immigration policy or anything else. We have to stop gauging our performance on border control by how much effort we’ve put into it. We have to start gauging our performance on how many people cross the border illegally. Our security depends on it. Control the border.

On Education

I believe that one of the most important factors to the sustainment of American democracy is the success of our public schools. As a conservative who had a great experience as a public school student, it greatly disturbs me to hear the cacophony of conservative commentators who frequently cast aspersions on public schools and public school teachers. While I think that teacher pay should somehow be tied to performance, the fact that teachers have unions does not cause me impugn the system just as the fact that autoworkers have unions does not prevent me from loving a new car.

Certainly, some, perhaps many public schools have problems, but that doesn’t mean that the idea of public schools is bad or inferior to private schools or other alternatives. For every family I know that has had to deal with problems with public school teachers or administrators, I know another family who has had the same difficulty at a private school. For every brilliantly educated home schooled kid of my acquaintance, I know another home schooled kid who would say something like “my parents tried to teach me junior high math, but I didn’t learn anything.” The essence is this…different kids may thrive in different schooling environments. Let each option exist without diluting or detracting from the other.

Per Census Bureau figures, there are about 14 times more students in public high schools than in private high schools (roughly, 14 million to 1 million.) So it is imperative that we focus on how to make public schools better. While many students have been helped by the “no child left behind” rules, I propose that the next plateau we need to target is “no child shoe-horned into a system that doesn’t fit their personality and learning style.” Not every kid learns best by listing to a different lecture every hour in a different room. Not every kid is an extrovert who gets energized by interacting with hundreds of their peers on a daily basis. Public schools need to find ways to make large structural changes in the teaching process to resonate with a variety learning styles and student needs.

On Abortion

The next step we must take in the discussion about abortion is to view it for what it really is. I think it is safe to say that virtually no one actually believes that conducting an abortion is a wonderful course of action. Certainly, some individuals with special interests will be exceptions to that. But for most, the act of abortion represents some point on a spectrum between “never” and “it is okay if…” Our arguments about that point stem from how we structure the situation. For anti-abortionists, that point focuses on the individual rights of the unborn baby. For abortionists, that point focuses on the rights of the mother. And both sides have a moral/legal platform that supports their view. The reality of the situation is more complex than that. The basic situation is not composed of one life or the other, but rather it is a life within a life. Unfortunately, we don’t have a good modern moral/legal platform with which to model a life-within-a-life concept. There are biblical references of course, but nothing in our constitution.

No “medical” television series is complete without an episode in which a doctor of outstanding bedside manner steps out in to a waiting room and says “I can save the mother or I can save the baby, but I can’t save both.” Real life is rarely that simplistic in the choices it provides to us, but that scenario is similar to the dilemma we facing in defining a legal model for abortion. It is two lives. Let’s figure out how to solve the abortion question from that perspective.

On Gun Control

Interestingly, we have a lot of gun control in this country. How did we get to where we are now from “shall not infringe.” No doubt through a series of “reasonable” tests. What would be reasonable now is to stop trying to think of new ways to restrict gun ownership rights and focus on the things that cause a person to commit a crime. John Locke, who wrote the Second Treatise of Government so influential to our founding fathers taught that the punishment for a crime should be of such severity as to dissuade people from committing it. Let’s start with that and then move to include positive life changing experiences for those who commit crimes.

On Energy

Unless there is some secret plan for us to be the last to run out of energy resources, we need to produce more of our own.

On the Effectiveness of the Federal Government

As President, managing the immense federal organization is among the foremost of responsibilities. While many believe the government is too large overall, I believe that the more precise problem is that government is too inefficient due to overlapping scope between agencies and outright duplication of functions. Eighty percent of federal employees are hard working people dedicated to serving the country and to the performance of their agency. Ten percent are people just floating along. The last ten percent are careerists. But these last twenty percent are not the biggest problem. Duplication is.

Take the effect of the Clinger-Cohen Act for example. In order to stop the run away spending on personal computers within the government, the Act required each major agency to, among other things, develop a Chief Information Officer process for computer planning and purchase approvals. Each agency was to report on their progress a few years after the establishment of the Act. Most failed the first round of reporting. Then everybody got on the band wagon. Every group with a computer budget set up some sort of CIO. Now there are hundreds of CIOs and still no effective government wide computer strategy. But there is rampant duplication of process. Ask yourself, if Chief means chief, why would the government need more than one CIO.

As another example, consider the duplication within the military: the Air Force has ground troops, the Navy has aircraft, and the Army has boats.

The number one thing we need to do is work our way out of all the duplication. Almost all agencies have been subject to shrinking budgets over the last few years. Most of those have had to reduce personnel to the point that most federal employees would tell you that their agency is understaffed to the point of ineffectiveness. If the duplications in agency responsibilities could be removed, there would be plenty of staff to do the nation’s business.

Politics

We spend so much energy on “liberal versus conservative.” In the purest sense, we all fall somewhere on the same spectrum that ranges from “what is required” to “what is allowed.” But our subjectivity gets in the way of honest debate. So let’s be honest with ourselves. There is a big difference between classic conservative thought and dogmatic heel dragging. And there is a big difference between classic liberal thought and blind chaotic change.

Let us resolve to seek unity and preserve the union. Let us resolve to embrace each branch of government in the way it was designed, working together for a greater United States of America.

***

Please feel free to comment on the above script or suggest additional topics to cover in the script.