LET US REVIEW

     The presidential election is nearly upon us. We have heard the give and take betwen President Obama and Governer Romney and their ideas have been placed before us. Decision time. How do we go about evaluating the two contestants and making that choice. Is it simply on the plans and proposed programs that they have put before us? Or is it the policies that the two men have put into place in their two administrations or perhaps the life experiences of these individuals?
     The plans and proposed programs give us key as to what their administrations might look like. But    this is really insufficient information because they will need legislative help to advance these agendas and, as we know, the legislature often changes proposed laws through compromise and their own self interest or the interest of their constituency.
     So perhaps the policies of their administrations points us to the possible shape of life under a country with either a Romney or Obama as president. In the case of Governor Romney because, for example, he supported and worked to pass a health care program for the state of Mass. we could speculate that he had the interest of the citizens of the state as a priority. This however seems inaccurate because during his most recent run for the presidency he has disavowed "Obama Care" when he was appealing to the extreme right wing of the Republican party. That is until the second debate when he backed away from that position and seemed to say that the Affordable Care Act was not such a bad idea. He also talks about how through bipartisanship and working with the Democrats in Mass he was able to pass legislation. Then we belatedly discover that during his one term tenure there he issued 800 vetoes; hardly a sign of cooperation with the other party. These examples and others cited by commentators indicate that we can tell nothing about the future would hold in a Romney administration because he changes positions depending on the expediency of the moment.
     The future with an Obama administration is however much clearer based on what he has already accomplished. Let us look again at the Affordable Care Act. Considering the President's experience as a child seeing his mother who had to fight from her death bed with an insurance company to pay the bills that they were obligated to pay. This affected him and motivated him to work tirelessly for health care reform and to stay with it not because it was easy but because it was the right thing to do. It was doubly difficult because certain elements of the health care industry, such as the drug and insurance companies, saw that their excessive profits and questionable practices were under attack. The President because of his life experience was and is more concerned with the welfare of people and less concerned with the profits of already wealthy companies and corporations.
     The above two paragraphs clearly indicate that one candidate (Romney) is only interested in the expediency of the moment and how it benefits him. Conversely they indicate that the welfare of lindividuals motivated President Obama.
     You may say that the above is insufficient evidence to make a decision about who to vote for. How else can we evaluate these two men and their fitness to hold the office of the president? If history points to the future and the actions of individuals and to what they value lets look at the earlier lives of these two men.
     First there is Governor Romney who was the moving force behind Bain Capitol. What was the "principle" that moved that company along? Profit for those at the top of the company. They would buy a company, move in, and load it with debt. If somehow the company was able to survive this excessive debt (usually accomplished by firing many individuals, cutting benefits, and generally making life miserable for workers) they would take the profits, sell the company again, and run with the profits. The more common cenario however was to strip the company of all value, take the employees pensions, and benefits, fire them and (again) run with the profits. Their main concern, probably only, concern was profits for themselves with no consideration for the people that were left behind jobless.
     Now consider President Obama. While he was a student at Harvard he was the editor of the Law Review, a prestigious position. Many others who have been the editor have gone on to very lucrative    positions with Wall Street or DC law firms. President Obama however decided to return to Chicago to become a community organizer and help the less fortunate in Chicago's poorest neighborhoods. This was a position that was far from lucrative. His motivation had to be to help care for "the lost and the least".
     The original question was how do we go about evaluating the two contestants? Past performance and life values demonstrated by their pursuits is an excellent indicator. ("You will know them by their fruits.") Do you want a president that considers the profit motive the highest calling and accomplishment that one can attain? Or do you want a president who puts others first, who considers people and their welfare to be the highest calling and accomplishment. Personally I have no difficulty making this decision and I will be honored to cast my vote for President Obama.