Does the concluding statement appear that I intimated any candidates should cite what they believe are anyone else's failings, or does it suggest that I want to hear from candidates what specific courses of action they would take and how they will implement those initiatives?
OK, but this usually redounds to the benefit of incumbents/insiders, who have greater access to current information. Asking other candidates what they would specifically do in 2017 is largely a hypothetical exercise.
For this discussion, I wasn't thinking along that line, but since you mentioned it....I agree that incumbents and/or folks who've held federal elected office are minimally better positioned to know and understand a fuller spectrum of both domestic and international matters, yet, among Republicans, the current preference, judging by polls, is a man who's held no such office.
It's rather astounding to me that in our ever more complex and more nuanced world that the nation is keener on someone who cannot possibly know the vaguest "inside" details of "what's what" with the various foreign relationships the U.S., particularly with regard to relevant information that isn't made public for national security reasons, yet going with someone who lacks any such information or access to it is exactly what the majority of Republican voters seem to want to do. I suppose seen that way, the answer to the title question is rather clear: a large share of the populace would sooner "cut off our nose to spite our face," with regard to whom they would choose for President.
Yes, I realize that no such experience is a criterion for the job of President. It's also so that each voter is entitled to choose whom they most prefer. That doesn't mean that doing so is necessarily the best choice they can make. I might make some choices "against my better judgment," such as the one to let my middle child go to the university he most preferred, but I'd hardly act that way in a voting booth. Indeed, regardless of where I stand on any given policy, the fact is that in voting I choose a candidate who strikes me, among other things, as the least risky choice with regard to specific experience at managing the nation.
To understand what I mean, just reread George W. Bush's remarks about initiating the second Gulf War.
The key word in his remarks is "zeal." Zeal clouds one's ability to think rationally. That his zeal, and that of his top advisors, got in the way of rational judgment is exactly the kind of thing that experience can mitigate. It's nice that Mr. Bush apologized, and I accept his apology, but that doesn't do a thing to recover thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in treasure.
Of all the folks running for President, Mr. Trump is the one who has had the least to say in terms of substantive and implementable policy choices. Were the world a less complicated place, the lack of experience and insight would be less of a factor. I'm sure Mr. Trump knows just as you and I do that he has no idea of how or whether his various ideas can be implemented. That he doesn't know, however, is one fine reason not to choose him over any of his competitors.
