The Issues

It's a sad, sad truth that political discussions in this country are rarely about the issues. In fact, just off the top of my head, I'll list 5 things that probably impact a candidate's success more than the issues. In no specific order:

1) Physical Appearance
2) Charisma
3) Religious Beliefs
4) Past Associations
5) Articulation

Whether or not you personally judge a candidate based on the above criteria, there's no denying that nearly every election cycle is more about those 5 traits than the issues at hand. Principled leadership is almost an oxymoron. And I'm not suggesting there was ever really a time when this wasn't the case. Sure, I believe the founding fathers were great (if not flat out insane), but I'm not naïve enough to think that they didn't squabble over who was better than whom based on those 5 points. We were just lucky to get a few nice documents out of the mess, and some rather modest leaders. Hell, they wanted George Washington to be king, and it was probably only due to some combination of shyness and laziness (he did grow a lot of hemp) that caused him to originate the artificial two term limit.

What's even worse is that most of us contribute to the problem. I'll be the first to admit, if sheepishly, that I've argued for candidates in the past based on their electability as a function of those 5 qualities, rather than their stances on the issues and a record to back it up. This kind of mindset is really based on rationalization. We, as voters, are willing to rationalize a candidate into office who does not support what we believe, because they are electable and occasionally say some nice sound bites slightly resembling our goals. We say to ourselves, "hey, if we can just get them into office, maybe they'll do what I want....and at least they won't do what the other guy wants." In reality, they never do what we want, simply because that is not why we elected them. And they know all too well that it's the 5 factors that are the real issues behind their votes.

So how do we fix this problem? We invest. Warren Buffet (owner of Berkshire Hathaway), the most successful investor in the United States, accumulated massive amounts of wealth based on some pretty simple principles. He used fundamental analysis in an investment approach appropriately dubbed "value investing." He literally sought out companies that he believed were significantly undervalued by the majority of investors. If the company had extremely good fundamentals, but the market -- for whatever reason -- didn't jive with it, he bought it anyway. He realized that if they stuck to principles he could trust (and knew worked), eventually other people would notice as well. Think of the impact Buffet must have had on a company when he decided to acquire or invest in it. Despite the superficial reasons for the market tossing it aside earlier, you'd better believe they changed their minds when Warren decided to trust them.

To use an analogy, politicians are really just like companies. We elect them to get things done. We hope to get a return on our investment. Most of the amazingly successful ones lack substance and are probably overvalued (think internet companies of the late 90s). If we truly want positive change, we need to support undervalued politicians with good fundamentals (i.e. those who stick to the issues we actually agree with). And with enough time, hopefully the rest of the people will take notice. Sure, it's not instant gratification or even change. But neither is solid investing. As long as we keep lying to ourselves about what the hotshot candidates might do, we will continue to lose out on every political deal we make.

With all that said, I thought I'd leave you with my favorite clip from the Fox News Republican Debate. This is exactly what I'm talking about: