By Matt Bisanz

Listening to the recent debates, I almost wonder what qualifies candidates for office. In general, each Republican argues that his primary qualification is they are not for Hillary Clinton. At the same time, each Democrat argues that he or she should be elected because he or she is not a Republican. That leaves me to ask, who are these candidates? I know what they are not, but just because someone is not someone else, does not make them someone I want. For instance, it is very easy to argue that Charles Manson is not Hillary Clinton or that Hugh Hefner is not Mitt Romney, but that does not imply that they are therefore qualified for the presidency. In fact, the lack of a better qualification concerns me. I want a leader who doesn’t care who he’s running against, because he knows that his plan is the best plan, regardless of the competition. If he only believes that he is better than one or two other people, then how do I know he is the best person?

One idea proposed is that candidates should name their cabinet while campaigning in the primary. This is an interesting idea for the following three reasons. First, it commits a candidate to a comprehensive plan. While the president is ultimately in charge of the country, many of the individual programs are implemented by department heads at a tactical level. It would make a difference to me if the president’s boyhood friend was selected for attorney general or a respected lawyer from another part of the country. Also, it would force a candidate to choose more moderate individuals for office. Would Bush have really won if it was known that Ashcroft would be the attorney general before the election? Finally, selecting the cabinet before hand would limit the influence of donors and coattail riders. Many donors continue to raise money in order to cash their chips in when the candidate wins. They usually cash it in for some office or honor. If candidates had to declare before all the fundraising was done, who they would put in charge of critical departments like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) might be someone with a specialty in disaster management instead of a specialty in racehorse ownership.

Of course, it is unlikely that candidates will ever do anything that restricts them. The Republicans have shied away from debates on Telemundo or online, because debates in those forums would force them to address uncomfortable issues like immigration and job outsourcing. Democrats have avoided details on an Iraq War strategy, because they don’t want to say something now that might not look as good in six months.

This brings me back to my original question. Why should we elect any of these people to office? People who are so unwilling to take any stand on controversial issues, or commit to any solid path in office, should not be president.

We need leaders who will commit to specific goals. The Democratic health programs are a good start, but it needs to be more comprehensive. Regardless of if you agree with it, the 1994 “Contract with America” defined precisely where the Republicans stood on core issues. If you didn’t agree with them, you voted against them, simple as that. With today’s candidates always moving, Giuliani can go from a liberal pro-choicer to the conservative, anti-abortionist he believes Republicans want him to be. But how committed can a person be if they will change their views to suit others? Past performance is the best indicator of future performance in hiring people for work. Wouldn’t it make sense then that if a person’s past performance is being indecisive or attacking others to avoid taking a position, that they would then exhibit those same traits as a leader? It is the responsibility of Americans to understand the candidates and vote for the candidate whose past performance best meets what their vision of the future is.

Matt Bisanz is a graduate student. You may e-mail him at [email protected].