Political promises best ignored

House Editorial

This election, like most before it, has forced the public to endure months of campaigning. Both Sen. Kerry and President Bush have argued over whose plan for the United States will result in a stronger nation, but individuals would be wiser to vote for the candidate whose philosophies — rather than promises, they agree with most.

Presidents, once in office — and especially when running for re-election — often are criticized for not making good on the outlandish promises they made during their campaign. It is important to listen to what a politician would do in an ideal world because it gives perspective into what their ideals are, but the actual promises largely should be discounted.

The political reality in this country does not often lend itself to a president or any other politician being able to push into law whatever legislation he or she desires. We are governed by consensus, and it is rare that a president, Congress, and Supreme Court are all in consistent agreement.

A voter should instead examine what motivates a politician — what he or she believes and what guides his or her decisions. These are the basic principles that the politician will act on daily and the foundation on which their term in office will be built.

Much to the dismay of resolute voters for both candidates, undecided voters have accused Bush and Kerry of being the same person. As also was with Bush and Al Gore, voters say this coming election is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Admittedly, some of the end results the two candidates this year have in mind would be similar, but their approaches vary drastically.

Voters must examine these approaches; they are the only things that can be relied on to maintain some consistency throughout the next four years. No one could have predicted that a year after his inauguration, Bush would be reversing his promises of lessening involvement in foreign affairs and responsible government spending because of a perceived necessity. Whether or not the necessity existed reflects immediately back on Bush’s own views — the criteria by which he should have been elected. An idealistic voter is a noble person, but a voter first and foremost in our republican system, should vote for the candidate who represents their best interests. Candidates whose ideals and approaches to government and problem solving match a voter’s own are the candidates most likely to consistently represent that voter’s best interests.