This is something that I’m writing more for myself than for anyone else, because it’s been on my mind as I follow the democratic primaries. I don’t mean to endorse any particular candidate, because I’d still call myself [kind of] undecided. Now that it’s quickly becoming clear that the California primary might actually influence whom the democratic candidate is, I feel obligated to consider my options seriously. But I’m not prepared (or even interested) in going over the details of each of their platforms here and now. What I’m trying to figure out tonight is whether a candidate even needs to have a point-by-point plan for dealing with every aspect of American foreign and domestic policy.

Everybody had his or her issue. Mine is the obviously the environment. In fact, I’m very nearly a single-issue voter, which I think distinguishes me somewhat from most of the American electorate. None of the candidates have what I would call I perfect environmental platform. But, perhaps surprisingly, I’m not that bothered. The way I see it, it’s more important to have a candidate with an appropriate attitude and worldview for the commander in chief. This is a lot more difficult to get wonkish over than whether so-and-so supports a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. I guess I just find it more illuminating to know about a candidate’s general views on regulation than the specifics of their regulatory policies.

Don’t get me wrong, nitty-gritty policy details can be hugely important when it comes to executing policy, and if you can’t get anything done then you can talk about hope and change all you want (if you get my drift). The thing is, I just don’t expect anyone to be an expert about everything. If presidents were supposed to know everything, they wouldn’t need to appoint a cabinet or expert advisors. But if I identify with a candidate’s zeitgeist, I’m inclined to trust him or her to select smart advisors, to ask them for advise when necessary (which should happen frequently), and to trust the advice they offer.

So what do you think? Do you lean toward the candidate who has pretty good policies with dotted ‘i’s and crossed ‘t’s, or the candidate who agrees with you 100% about the issues that need attention and is energized about finding solutions. What’s your risk/reward calculus?

Of course, most of the readers I used to have left for greener pastures when I vanished for two years, so I’ll be lucky to get any feedback on this one. But none of this is rhetorical. I’ve presented a view that I’m sympathetic to, but my certitude is – shall we say - limited. If you’re out there, dear readers, and you think I’m right, then validate my whimsy and say so. If you think I’m wrong you’re job is slightly (but not much) more complex: show me the error of my ways. Bring me to the light. If California is up for grabs, then so is this author’s vote. Hell, I could even be persuaded to make a donation to one campaign or the other. Or the other*. But don’t go all Dennis Kucinich on me – he’s got a great personality, but I just don’t think he’s my type.

*And for real, if you can’t figure out how these views correspond to particular candidates, then you’re probably not following the race closely enough to persuade me either way. But feel free to go ahead and try**.

**Michael Shellenberger, if you're still out there, please note item 1 on the first of those three links!