Job Interview

The election is sometimes characterized as an eighteen-month job interview.  Since that's about seventeen months too long, it's no surprise that we've wandered very far afield from the fundamental questions that should be asked about a presidential candidate.  While this can be interesting - it's a good forum to discuss economic theories, for instance - it ultimately is a distraction from what the job is and what the qualifications should be.  I'd like to take a moment to talk about the election in the context of what it is that a president actually does.

Presidents run the executive branch.  They take the role of commander in chief (a role which has expanded to allow them to run entire wars without the explicit consent of Congress, more's the pity), they represent our nation at the highest diplomatic level, and they recommend legislation to Congress.  They do not make laws (although they can veto them) and they certainly do not rule on the constitutionality of laws (the closest they come is in nominating Supreme Court candidates which then have to be confirmed by the Senate).  So, while it's interesting that Donald Trump wants to revoke the Affordable Care Act and Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, suggesting the idea to Congress is about as far as they can go to get either of those goals accomplished.

Of course, that's a bit of an understatement.  Because so much of the campaign focuses on these issues, the suggestions of a newly elected president carry the weight of the electorate, and can help Congress get moving on an issue or two.  But just ask Barack Obama how long that honeymoon lasts - the answer is not much longer than the time to pass the Affordable Care Act.

My point is that the main jobs of a president are outward-facing, whether that's providing military oversight or diplomatic influence or just serving as a living symbol of America.

With that in mind, my positions on those outward-facing issues are by no means finalized.  Our place in the world is a complicated issue.  Having grown up with the disastrous Iraq war and the way it exacerbated the state of terrorist activity instead of curbing it, my instincts are isolationist; just leave the world alone and get back to work at being the best country we can be.  I have to admit, however, that I'm glad we intervened in World War II, and that if such a situation arose again, I would hope I would have the nerve to act.

There are, however, a few issues I consider sacred.  One of those is immigration.  I agree with the inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I feel strongly that opening our doors to immigration has been one of the principal strengths of the United States.  The influx of immigration has made us tolerant, productive, strong, and populous.  Where other developed countries face stagnating labor pools, we continue to grow because of immigration.  It seems painfully obvious to me that the aging demographics that threaten to bankrupt Social Security could be remedied by an influx of young, ambitious immigrants.  It seems equally obvious that each immigrant not only takes a job but also consumes goods and creates the need for more jobs.  It's my understanding of the research that immigrants are in general less likely to be criminals than native-born Americans; it's my understanding of history that many of our great figures have come from humble beginnings and foreign shores.

But even if it wasn't good economic policy, I would still support immigration.  I support it because I believe every human being who craves freedom should be welcomed to my country.  I support it because the best way to lift a person out of poverty and make them a maximally productive part of the global economy is to bring them to America.  I support it because I think America is almost the only country on earth where you can become truly American without having been born here, and that is something I am deeply humbled and grateful to be a part of.

Mr. Trump has recommended building a wall with Mexico; I think we should expedite Mexican immigration so that there is no need for any decent person to risk death trying to enter America.  Mr. Trump has offered to ban all Muslims from entering the country in the name of preventing terrorism.  To make a personal analogy, this sounds to me like trying to prevent polygamy by evicting all the Mormons (just as the vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism, the vast majority of modern Mormons condemn polygamy, and denounce the zealous, unsanctioned sects who participate in it). 

Secretary Clinton has a rather elitist take on immigration, wanting to let in educated people and continue our policy of shutting out the "huddled masses" mentioned in the inscription on the Statue of Liberty.  But in this election, I'll take what I can get.

Another issue I feel strongly about: not kowtowing to Russian dictators.  The current administration seems rather impotent in the face of Putin's aggression, and I can't imagine Hillary will do much better.  However, she isn't asking him to compromise our national security or praising him for his "strength" (I would argue that a moral person should see that the "strength" of a dictator is truly just a sign of crippling internal weakness).  Again, in this election, I'll take what I can get.

The last issue to mention here is that I wish we had an honorable person to represent our nation.  To discuss this in too much detail would drive this post back into the distractions from policy that have dominated this election, and will also set me up in judgement on two souls I do not personally know.  I will only say, based on the information available to me, that the evidence against Mr. Trump's character is taken from his own words spoken in public and on camera, while the evidence against Secretary Clinton is indirect and centered around less damning crimes.  If I must choose between a machiavellian manipulator and a narcissistic, ignorant, hateful predator (and, again, I can't in good faith claim to know for certain that's what either of them are), I think I'll take the manipulator.

So that's it. That's what I wanted to say.  The job interview has gone on too long, and in the end neither applicant meets my hiring criteria.  One of them seems somewhat indifferent to the things I think are important for a strong job performance; the other one hates them.  I'll take indifference.  I'll take what I can get.  And if what I can get is someone who won't actively destroy the things I hold dear, I think that's actually worth fighting for.

Hence the blog post.  And hence, more importantly, the determination to vote. This one matters.