Dissecting a decision

I made up much of my mind about this November's election a while back, but I realized after thinking a bit about why I made the choice, that the stage was set for me over 30 years ago. After voting for Jimmy Carter in 1976, I realized two or three years later that I'd made an awful mistake. Good man, terrible leader.

I've voted for the Republican presidential candidate ever since, beginning with Reagan. At times over the years, I wasn't always enthusiastic with my choice, but I saw it as the best option available at the time. I figure that, if the last time the New York Times newspaper would endorse a Republican candidate for president was over 50 years ago, then I'm a piker by comparison.

This year, I searched for the basis of my conclusions after examining my long-term choices, and applied it to the candidates. So much political argument stems from basic premises, and I think it's important to examine them, instead of caterwauling about something in today's news.

I concluded my political choices were typically based on three things, in priority order, but all three criteria play in important role in my political decision-making:

1. Political philosophy: I've had an affinity for fiscal and political conservatism since high school, when a co-worker at the Syracuse Post Standard newspaper suggested I read "The Fountainhead," Ayn Rand's novel about individualism. Since then, I've leaned in that direction more and more as time passes, and I've read a bit more since then as well. With respect to ideas and hopefully to behavior, I'm a sucker for small government and self-reliance.
2. Morality and trustworthiness: Is the candidate a good person? Is he or she courageous? Can I trust what he or she says regarding their values and how they will govern? Do they behave reasonably well in their personal lives? Are they kind? Can they sometimes make a decision, after having accounted for their values, that contradicts those values because it's the right thing to do, albeit politically unpopular or politically unwise?
3. Leadership: Is the candidate a good leader? Does he or she have the courage and the strong personal convictions to stand up to tyranny and the daily pressure of politics?

It's fun to articulate why you think in a certain way. First comes the thinking, the inquiry, followed by testing your premises, followed by articulation. Quite a process.