One of my deeper concerns is that many on the Right and Left have come to see the POTUS as a cure all, when the position is intended to be a mere figurehead. But I guess I just find the idea of having a Dictator (in the Roman sense, not modern parlance) concerning.
I have long been on record as being one of those who thinks the power of the President is grossly overstated by the average American. We blame the man in office for the economic travails and successes of the country when he in fact has very little direct influence over the affair. We act as if campaign promises to "do this" or "legislate that" have some real meaning beyond the authority to wield the veto pen which in itself is only as strong as Congress allows it to be.
The one place where the POTUS truly does wield some authority worth considering is over the armed forces.
What I find unreasonable is the pushing of Relativism from a man who is constantly harping about science and the policies we should take based on it. Isn't that inherently calling politics objective? Or is it only objective when you want it to be?
Facing reality is never unreasonable.
You can only be objective when you have the means to be objective. Can you really show me peer reviewed unbiased data indicating with any degree of confidence at all which of these two candidates will make the better CinC? No such tests exist. We don't even agree as a society on the definition of what "better" means assuming we had even the remotest sense of how to measure it. Hell, even after the fact, we often can't agree on whether a given president was
good or bad with his entire record on display. How are we to decide before they even take the oath?
I'm not advocating for the candidate I would "like to have a beer with". It is more important than a beauty contest. But until we have some means of answering the question of who is better with real data, then it will always default to a question of which one better fits my internal model of the leader of what is still the most powerful nation on earth. That your model and selection criteria lead you to a different choice doesn't surprise nor bother me. It doesn't make you irrational. It doesn't make you ill informed. The system has too many variables. Too many degrees of freedom. Too few constraints to have an answer that to which we can unambiguously say yay or nay. It is demonstrably hopelessly subjective.
Nonetheless, in the never ending search for better objectivity, I will always have a visceral dislike for a candidate who cannot get his or her facts straight, or who appears at least to not be the least concerned with what is verifiably true. Call it objectivity once removed. The inability to measure objectively a candidate's fitness for the office doesn't imply that anything goes. But of course, that's really just a statement of my subjective prejudice for accuracy. It might be that a serial liar is perfectly suited to the job. It would seem we will get a chance either way to discover the answer to that question next week.