I hear you, Anchoress, I really do.

I think it’s sad that pols and the public must endure two years of campaigning and the glaring media eye…seems to me things are moving too fast, anymore, for real thoughtfulness. Everyone is scrambling for either the next sound bite or the next “gotcha” moment, but there is no depth, no substance, no “there,” there to any of it…

I don’t see how - with everything both shallowed-out and speeded-up, we’re actually going to know any of the candidates better by election date while the spin cycle is still set on “disorientation.”

Between this and the emerging debate on the Corner – whether conservatives want a candidate who “owes” them or a candidate that is one of them – I figured it would be a good time to throw out the question of what we want in the man (or woman) who will take the oath of office on January 20, 2009.

I’ve currently got no favorite candidates, and a whole bunch of concerns.

The War: First, I want a hawk, obviously; not somebody who thinks that launching a few cruise missiles counts as “sending a message.” What’s more, I’m hoping for a president who has thought long and hard about the central challenge of our time. Does he think the problem of Islamic radicalism goes back to the teachings of Islam itself? If so, what can we outside the faith do about it? Why does he think the message of al-Qaeda resonates to young Muslim men, and what can be done to refute that? Does he think Pakistan is an ally or an enemy in the war on terror? What change, if any, would he or she bring to our policy with the Saudis? Does he agree with profiling? Does he think random searches at airports that end up with Grandma getting frisked makes sense?

And, you know, can he tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shia, since apparently very few people in our government can do that?

On Iran – I understand the sense of the ticking time-bomb; Ahmedinijad seems hell-bent on the biggest confrontation he can provoke. On the other hand, I hear the Iranian economy and infrastructure are slowly falling apart. Is there a way to win this, Cold-War style? Or is a military conflict inevitable? If it is, should we throw the first punch? I don’t know the answers to this; I want a nominee who has answers, and can make a persuasive case for them.

Finally, President Bush has done an awful job as a communicator as president. As I think Dean Barnett said, it has been 22 years since the Republicans nominated a candidate who is comfortable with the English language. The next president has to be a person who loves dealing with the press - domestic, foreign, speaking to hostile crowds, - a leader at home in the arena and facing the slings and arrows.

On the economy, I’m worried. I’ve mentioned my belief in a housing bubble elsewhere; I worry that a lot of our economic growth since the dot-com boom has been speculative, paper wealth and shortsighted home equity loans that are evaporating as the market returns to reality. (Sorry, homeowners, your house should not increase in value $150,000 per year.)

I realize the shift from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge-based one is in full swing, but I can’t shake the feeling that a lot of Americans aren’t ready for it. We don’t make stuff anymore to export to the rest of the world, and that’s a tough engine to replace in your economy.
 
On the Hillary Spot I’ve been deconstructing health care policy; anybody who promises something for nothing or better care for lower prices automatically loses my vote.

On Social Policy, I’m going to sound a bit communitarian in my worry that we’re losing that which ties us to our fellow citizens (unless there’s a crisis, like 9/11). I increasingly feel like our elites don’t solve our national problems; they self-segregate so that they can avoid those problems. If the public schools are lousy, the elites don’t worry, because they can send their children to private schools. (In fact, they often oppose vouchers because it might bring “those” kids into their good schools.) Is crime bad? The elites live in a safe neighborhood, with a private security service. (And then support gun control so that the plebes don’t have the ability to defend themselves from the criminal element.) Insufficient infrastructure? The elites can afford to telecommute, or live in the city close enough to their workplaces. In Great Britain, incoming first-class passengers now get their own much faster line for visa and passport checks. We’re discussing a frequent-flier lane for security that would use biometric data. In this case, we have a creaky bureaucracy doing its job badly, and the solution is to give the wealthiest the ability to “opt out” of dysfunctional systems.

I talked a bit about what I liked in a few GOP candidates so far on the Hillary Spot, and I talked a bit about how Obama seems like a decent man who may or may not make a decent president. But right now, I’d like to see less of the aspiring presidents whacking each other around and coming up with better answers to the questions and concerns I’ve listed here.

Cam: Excellent post, Jim. I think I agree with you on every point that you’ve made. I wonder too if we’re not setting the bar too high. Yesterday was Ronald Reagan’s 96th birthday, and I think a lot of conservatives like me really miss him.

Granted, my inner libertarian’s been rearing its ugly head lately, but I’d take a Ronald Reagan again in a heartbeat. Is that too much to ask for?

Marshall: I agree — awesome post, Jim. For my own part, I don’t know what I want. I agree with you — I definitely want someone who will be strong in defense of our nation. But I find my politics moderating. For example, I think I’m ready for a President who will be a bit more assertive in addressing climate change and implementing steps to preserve our environment. But mostly, I want someone smart and insightful with real vision and real talent for seeing his vision through to completion. I’m not sure who that is yet, but surely he’s out there.