Who Do I Chose?

I consider the candidate's actions to be most important. After that I consider his moral and political philosophy, both extremely difficult to judge because they are ideas or thoughts. If she should tell you of the noble and virtuous ideas, you must consider the possibility that she is unwilling or unable to turn them into actions. Jimmy Carter is a case in point: moral and idealistic, but incapable of gaining enough support to do something.

There are different styles. I've found many conservatives are top-down moralists: they assume if they elect a moral person to an office that virtue and good policy will inevitably result. Liberals are bottom-up consensualists: they assume if the policies are good that those policies will cause leadership to follow. Both are flawed. Moral men can do bad things and well crafted policies can lead to unintended results.

Ultimately, that is why other ideas about the practice of politics need to be tried: democracy, responsibility, community based economics and politics, decentralization and justice. Neither of the leading parties speaks in any depth to these issues. When I hear someone who does, then I know that at least a beginning of serious thought is there and this may be a candidate worth supporting.

Real differences

I get a feeling that "conservatives" and "liberals" are genuinely different and not in the ways usually discussed. It hasn't much to do with practical versus idealistic or consistent versus waffling or straight talking versus slick talking.

Conservatives in our day are comfortable with "the Rules": they think that they have a chance if we just keep the rules for success or normality or happiness the same, then all will be good. With this kind of mindset, any change or success outside of the norms, as they understand them, is really a personal threat: the notion that they might not really understand what the real rules of life are forces them to confront the awful prospect that a heuristic approach to reaching their goals may not succeed. That thought is anathema to a conservative.

Liberals are more concerned that we do things with the right motives, that we help those who haven't found success. To them "the Rules" are neither fixed nor necessarily friendly. The liberal approach is to redress the causalties of capricious application of the rules. Success outside of the norm is to be celebrated, it may show some of the those who don't succeed in conventional ways a way to enjoy an alternate success. That some may be incapable of any kind of success is anathema to the liberal.

The problem with either approach is that neither admits that a heuristic or systematic approach to society may not solve problems of injustice, ignorance, evil intent or chaotic circumstance. Each is looking for a solution outside of themselves, one in rules, the other in systems. To do that is to fundamentally to deny our humanity. That is why I prefer the progressive's somewhat unruly reliance on personal action, justice, wisdom, equity, mercy, responsibility and generousity.