Our individual choices will dictate our collective futures.

I once had an exceptional poli-sci professor who seemed to spend more time lecturing to us about how to choose a political candidate than about the political system itself. His wisdom has stood me well over the years because it was so simple to follow. In a nutshell, you choose a candidate the same way you would choose an employee: through careful, thoughtful, and dogged research into each candidate's history, character, and reputation, and not solely their self-promotion.

Yet as I watch the circus that is the current presidential race I am appalled by the utter lack of thought that many are obviously giving to their choices. Now, I am not here to sway anyone to one side or the other. I believe that we all are entitled to our opinions. However, what I see is what I can only describe as rampant mob mentality within the ranks of all the constituents. I wonder, how many of them actually "know" their candidate of choice? Not "know" in terms of personal acquaintance, of course, but "know" as in what their track record really has been, what philosophies their lives to that point have revealed, and how much more their pasts, as well as their presents, say about them?

I have heard it said that most people spend more time choosing their cars than their prospective spouses. I would say that the same is true of their candidates for public office. Would we buy a car simply because the salesman told us that it once belonged to a little old lady who drove it once a week to church a mile down the road? Or would we go over it carefully, checking for mechanical durability and dependability, and perhaps for well hidden repair work? How many of us would take that further by researching the reputation of that particular model in any number of consumer resources, and maybe even calling the previous owner for a "reference?"

The United States is a world leader, perhaps even THE world leader, and despite the rhetoric of isolationism our position in the world must be considered. Do we want a candidate who fails to accept this responsibility and who shows no consideration of the true power that America holds in the palms of her collective hands? Do we want a candidate who whips out the possibility of "nuking" our enemies without careful thought of what "collateral damage" really means, and of what the unmentionable consequences might be?

On the other hand, do we want a candidate who, though a decent man or woman, proves too weak in the eyes of the world because they are focused more on trying to fix what is wrong with us than in recognizing what is also wrong in the world at large? Would such a president allow an enemy to catch us with our pants down because he or she refused to see beyond American borders?

I submit that a middle ground can be found if the American voter were to remove themselves from the circus atmosphere and first decide what they want and then thoughtfully consider what the country needs juxtaposed against its place in an international world. Yes, we are a country of individuals, but we are also a country of states and of communities within those states. We are leaders in progress, social and otherwise, and, like it or not, the world watches us closely to see how we respond and lead in times of peace as well as crisis.

Realizing this, we cannot discount the whole, or the part of the whole, of which we are, and as such we cannot afford not to choose our leaders with great care. Rhetoric is nearly always cheap. Reality can be much more costly.