I’m always looking to quantify what makes a candidate acceptable or not. Thus I was drawn to four criteria that Scott suggested we should seek in candidates we would support. They should be Honest, Good, Wise, and Constitutional. Scott does a good job of expanding on each of the criteria, but this qualifier should guide all our political decisions:
All of the criteria we are called upon to apply to candidates is highly subjective and/or runs on a sliding scale. It requires a fair amount of personal effort to find out about each candidate and determine how well each measures up to the criteria. We should avoid a knee-jerk reaction to any candidate.
As I have been thinking about these criteria the idea came to me that we might be well served to apply the same criteria to the laws we sometimes vote on. Doubtless there is plenty of disagreement on whether vouchers are honest, good, wise, or constitutional. Different people will come down to different conclusions on each criteria, but it might elevate the debate if we would focus on those fundamental qualities rather than stooping to political maneuvering and scare tactics.
As citizens we do not directly vote on most of the laws that are made, but if we are able to choose representatives with these four characteristics, and then those public servants were to evaluate the laws they are called to vote on by applying those criteria we would be more likely to get laws that are in the best interests of the people and not merely the best interests of a special interest group, or a lobbyist, or the candidates hopes for reelection.