Confessions of a confused Republican

RICHARD L. HERSHATTER
Contributing Columnist
hershatter@lbknews.com

They started out with nine;
Then came the great debates
When only four did fine;
The rest met varied fates.

Last month, at long last, Florida’s Republican primary came to an end in a frantic propaganda feeding frenzy resembling nothing so much as a firing squad aligned in a circle, with collateral damage incurred by all the candidates.

Fox news commentator Chris Wallace labeled the 19 Republican debates “stupid.”

Arizona senior Sen. John McCain, veteran of 2008’s bruising contest, opined that 19 sessions were, in fact, too many.

Having watched every last one of them, both for the entertainment value and the chance to get to know each of the candidates better, this writer strongly disagrees with both critics.

Most of the presidential aspirants were comparatively unknown to the public as each initially tossed his or her hat into the ring. In today’s modern era of instant technological communication, there exists no better way of exploring each candidate’s ideas and leadership abilities.

Unfortunately President Ronald Reagan’s dictum of not attacking one’s fellow Republicans was not followed, but the winnowing process did its work, and by the time the contest reached Florida, the original nine contestants were down to four.

Some of the results defied explanation.

Why, for example, was Herman Cain forced to drop out owing to sexual peccadilloes, when Newt Gingrich was able to survive with a record that made Cain look like Snow White?

Why were primary voters and caucus attendees dismissive of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who decried Darwinism, but tolerant of former Sen. Rick Santorum, who felt that condoms and other forms of birth control were works of the devil?

How has Ron Paul been able to survive, when so many of his positions are not of this planet or this world?

And why was so little attention paid to Jon Huntsman, whose views came across as more attuned to the 21st century than any of the surviving candidates?

This lifelong Republican confesses that in spite of avidly following the statements and positions of the candidates and their varied PAC and super PAC supporters, he was unable to make up his mind as to whom to support until actually approaching the polling place on Jan. 31.

And even now, with the results counted and certified, and the final four going on to encounters in Maine, Colorado and Minnesota, I cannot be certain that my choice was the correct one.

Wallace and McCain may have felt that the debates were a foolish waste of time, but a Philadelphia lawyer by the name of Seymour “Spence” Toll has identified the problem as a failure on the part of debate moderators to ask the appropriate questions.

Attorney Toll stresses the need for voters to acquire essential information, which he defines as “getting answers to questions about, for example, the candidates’ views on the proper role of government.”

What he has in mind is “a series of questions that every candidate and voter should answer. This applies to all candidates and voters, whatever their gender, race, religion or opinion about whether the newly elected president should wear blue jeans while taking the oath of office.”

While not claiming the following list of questions to be exhaustive, Toll believes that it will produce the information we need to be able to vote intelligently:

“Government: Does the candidate believe that the day town governments began collecting garbage, or the day the federal government began regulating air traffic, was the day when government went too far?

“Economics: Does the candidate agree that 99 percent of Americans have a genuine grievance against the top 1 percent of income earners? Or should it be 98 percent against 2 percent?

“International relations: Does the candidate think that foreign affairs are none of our business because affairs are a personal matter?

“Judiciary: In choosing potential justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, would a candidate insist on nominees who intend to rely on the original intent of the authors of the Constitution — even if that means determining what their original intent was regarding the Internet?

“Balanced ticket: If a candidate is lesbian, should she require her vice presidential running mate to be gay?

“Patriotism: Does the candidate believe that serving meatloaf instead of turkey for Thanksgiving is traitorous?

“Values: Would you refuse to vote for a candidate who is an ardent advocate of fidelity and also commits adultery once or twice a week? If so, is that because you think such a candidate is hypocritical, or because you are concerned he may not have enough time to run the country?

“Science: Consider the following statement: ‘The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.’ Does the candidate think it is scientific gibberish?

“Consistency: Does a candidate who rejects any or all of the programs he recently supported as a lobbyist do so because he has an open mind?

“Gun control: If a candidate is certain that every citizen has a constitutional right to own a gun, does it follow that every family has a right to possess a howitzer?”

While the foregoing list is by no mean exhaustive, it is enough to make the student of current politics grateful for Philadelphia lawyers. Attorney Toll is not only a classic example of the breed, he also has the distinction of being a member of the same 1948 Yale graduating class as President George H. W. Bush.

And if the answers to all Toll’s questions had been available before Florida’s unpredictable primary, this writer would probably have eliminated all candidates, with the possible exception of Rick Perry, who very likely would not have understood the questions.

Richard L. Hershatter is a retired Connecticut lawyer and novelist who writes an occasional column of interest to Floridians. He can be reached at hershatter@lbknews.com.