man in brown and white long sleeve shirt holding brown wooden stick

Four Considerations About the Field of Presidential Candidates

abraham lincoln america architecture art

In thinking about what to write about today–which is unique since I’ve not been able to write new content in a few weeks, courtesy of class finals and a new puppy–the topic that seems to be on everyone’s minds is the upcoming presidential election in 2024. There are those convinced that Donald Trump is the only salvation for the nation, while others believe that Joe Biden has done great things for the country and should be re-elected. After these two candidates are a slew of other mostly Republican candidates, namely, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, Perry Johnson, Larry Elder, Asa Hutchinson, Tim Scott, Ron DeSantis and a few Democrats, Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The common theme about them all though is that whoever is elected is either the ultimate solution or death sentence for the country,

If you’re like me, you probably haven’t heard of many of these candidates–though, to be fair, the campaigning is just now beginning. However, there is a slew of them and at any political event I attend, the discussion always ends up circling around to who should be president, why a certain candidate is the hope for the country and the like. News stories tend to revolve around which candidates are announcing, and what that could mean. Of course, members of both parties contend that their party will be cheated out of winning in the upcoming presidential election. The discussion topics are endless.

In this article, I’m not going to speak on any specific candidate/party but rather give a bird’s eye view of the field from a Constitutional and hopefully, rational perspective. My hope is that Americans, the employers of government, will be willing to extract themselves from the emotional tar-baby of party and ideology in order to effectively and rationally consider the field.

One: The Election of the President Should Never Be and Isn’t This “Important”

man hat usa portrait

This simple fact is probably the most commonly disregarded and forgotten fact. The role of President in this country was never created to be a highly powerful position. Consider the historical context. The founders had just extracted themselves from an abusive situation that involved a King who, if he wasn’t standing up for them against parliament he was greedily wielding power over the citizenry in a way that made him a tyrant. The last thing the founders wanted to create was a powerful executive.

In fact, James Madison was so aware of the inherent Constitutional weakness of the executive he said in Federalist 51, “As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided [into two chambers], the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.”

The weight of power in the federal government falls squarely on the shoulders of Congress, while the President plays sidekick. He’s there to enforce the laws and agenda that Congress–based on what their various constituency need–establishes (One individual can’t know the diverse needs of the whole citizenry). Of course, Congress’s agenda is limited by the Constitution, leaving the majority of government power to the states.

To reiterate, the amount of attention, time and money that this country pours into the presidential elections far outweighs the expected “result” or “solution” such attention, time and money is supposed to produce. The President can himself do very little of what he promises. Why? The position is not a position of King no matter how much this nation tries to make it such or treats it as such.

Two: Political Fluff and Talking Points Are the Name of the Game and We Allow It/Demand It

Unfortunately, over time, candidates for President have learned that their target bases aren’t looking for them to give realistic campaign messages based on their real job description as President, but rather, their target bases are looking for certain “phrases” and “talking points”, most of which over-inflate the power of the President AND the Federal government in general —which is what the candidates want. If we think they have certain powers, they have those powers.

Essentially, we’ve taught our candidates to gives us no substance whatsoever because we don’t want substance. For instance, Trump supporters are typically satiated by talkings points that touch on the new “transgender” issues, or “abortion” or “immigration” or fortifying the “police”–all but one of these topics belong exclusively to the states. Further, there’re no specifics here–just emotion bating. Biden supporters are satiated by talking points about “social security” and “medicare”, “abortion”, “Ukraine aid”, and “corporate taxation”, to name a few–all but one of these topics belong exclusively to the states. Again, there’re no specifics here–just emotion bating.

If we truly want change, the change has to start with us no lingering approving of or demanding the shallow messaging we allow our candidates to get away with.

Three: King-Like Tendencies and Platforms

Reading through a summary of the platforms each candidate is standing on further solidified for me to expectation we, the citizenry, have for a King rather than a President with limited power. Each platform is littered with an array of unconstitutional but also King-like powers. For instance, one candidate says that her goal is to “Reach 100 percent renewable energy and dramatically reduce CO2 (carbon) emissions by 2035 or earlier.”

In theory, some might think this sounds nice, but in reality, this is something only a King could do, not a president with limited power.

cloudy sky above mount rushmore

Four: The President Is Not and Never Will Be the Solution

This is the crux of it all. The position of president is not and was never created to be the solution to all of life’s problems. In fact, in the country, government was never created to be the solution to all of life’s problems. Thus, one of the weaker positions in the federal government (i.e. the executive) is not and certainly never can be the solution to “everything”(i.e. gun violence, racism, sexism, economic hardship, the “drug crisis”, etc) That’s the burden of freedom. The people or the states and local governments are their own solution, no matter how messy.

However, when we treat the position of President as if it is the solution to all of life’s problems, the position takes on more and more “unofficial” power, further turning it into the position of a King. And friends, look at history. What King, even if he had unlimited power, has ever effectively been the solution to all of life’s problems? A King may have unfettered power to take some actions that society at large may deem good at the time, but having the power to do these “good actions” also means having the power to do any and everything else.


man in brown and white long sleeve shirt holding brown wooden stick

I’m not saying the role of president is entirely unimportant, but I am saying that it is far less important that we as a society make it out to be. It would behoove our Constitutional republic and liberty for us to keep the position in its proper place while putting more emphasis on the governments that do matter, such as state and local — and then Congress.

Otherwise, we’re doomed to reap what we have sewn.

If we keep demanding a King…

We’ll end up with a King.

The Liberty Belle

4 thoughts on “Four Considerations About the Field of Presidential Candidates”

  1. Pingback: Four Considerations About the Field of Presidential Candidates – The Liberty Belle –

  2. The voting for a head of state, unlike a monarchy is fraught with dangers and you highlight them well here. I was struck at the abuses of King George you enumerate. I see many similarities in recent presidents, ‘I have a penand phone’ for example Its like Sheldon in Big Bang he is unaware often of what he says

  3. Bob Manderville

    I found over the years that in order to determine an acceptable candidate running for office we should look for the “FIVE P ”

    Practices. Policies, Protocol, Propriety, and Principles

  4. R. Bruce Hartnett

    An outstanding and correct opinion, Chistin. Figured your repostings were a sign of how busy you’ve been, and even taking on a new puppy too! Therefore, I’ve not responded in a while. Keep up the good work with you absolute Constitutional backing.

Leave a Reply

Scroll to Top