Page Header
Applying common sense to everyday life.

About Us


Presidential Priorities
July 1st, 2011

Every four years, a group of people seek to become the President of the United States and we, as citizens, are on the hiring committee.  The candidates present their credentials with as much enthusiasm as they can muster and then, we examine their resumes, determine which have the same goals as ours, decide who is capable enough to attain those goals, and then fight for the candidate who we think will do the best job.

But how are we supposed to know who is the best candidate?  There are so many important aspects of the presidency and so much information about each one of them that we can get confused.  It’s no wonder that we filter out most of the information and focus on only those aspects that sound interesting to us.

Unfortunately, we pick our candidate after examining only a few of their qualities or positions.  It’s possible that we made the correct choice, but did we?  The odds say no because, while most of us know how to identify the most important problems and issues, we have trouble working on the most important ones first.

Obviously, all of us know how to list and prioritize ordinary tasks because we do it every day.  Whether it’s on paper or in our head, we make a list of those things that need to be taken care of.  We put the most important tasks at the top and least important at the bottom.  The problem we have is in choosing where to start.

Even though we list the tasks in order of importance, most of us start with the most interesting rather than the most important.  We work from the top only when there’s an immediate, overwhelming problem that we can’t avoid.  It’s just more fun to set up a luncheon date with a friend than it is to iron shirts. 

That’s a problem because we tend to let those habits spill over into the election process.  When we list the necessary positions for the presidential candidates, we’re sure to get all of our favorite topics onto that list, such as; education, the economy, taxes, the arts, foreign policy, national security, environment, health care, religious freedom, social security, and so many more.  But, where should we start?  We know which presidential issues are important but our favorites just seem more interesting.

It seems elementary to say this, but only the living are concerned with the above issues.  None of the dead are concerned about them.  Simply stated, that means that in order to enjoy better health care, a better environment, a healthy economy, and so on, we have to be alive.  That means that the single most important presidential issue for us is whether or not our candidate is concerned about keeping us alive.  Therefore, the task to identify those candidates who want to keep us alive has to be at the top of our list.

But how can that be a serious issue because no candidate has ever advocated killing us?  In fact, all of the candidates seem to be very concerned about keeping us healthy and improving our quality of life.  So why should this issue even be on the list?

Here’s the problem.  While it’s true that none of the candidates have ever advocated our death “en masse”, some of them are, in fact, promoting the idea that some of us don’t have a good enough quality of life to be kept alive.  Keep in mind that some of the candidates are fighting for the right to choose whether or not a child should live, some of the candidates are fighting to let others “die with dignity”, and still other candidates are fighting to limit the number of people who live on the planet.  It’s as though they are saying that some of us have fallen below some minimum acceptable quality of life, and therefore, for the good of the individual, and/or the good of the planet, we should not be kept alive.

Remember that, when someone is fighting for some minimum acceptable “quality of life”, they are saying that when the quality of life of others (that would be you and me) falls below some arbitrary minimum, it should be ended, or at least nothing should be done to prolong it.  They are proposing that some fair minded and independent third party will impartially examine our situation and if they decide that the quality of our life doesn’t meet their expectations, they will start the government machinery to end our life.  That’s simply not a position that is in our best interest.

Helpful hint: in order to know whether or not a candidate is concerned about whether or not we are alive, don’t listen to their words, instead, watch what they are fighting for.  If a candidate is not concerned about the very young and the very old, then why will they be concerned about the rest of us? 

For our own sake, the issue of life needs to be at the top of our list.

Roger Cruze