It's one thing to say, this is my candidate, and another thing entirely to be able to articulate why, and to persuade the undecided through the explication of principles. Often, those with whom we speak will be unable to agree on the particular candidate, but will often be agreeable to the values we promote in the support of that candidate. As it stands, the Democrat candidate is nearly guaranteed, while the Republican field is wide open. I would like to ask everyone who shares these values, more or less, to register Republican (if need be) and vote in the primary election, selecting the party candidate for 2012. In Oklahoma, the primary is tentatively March 6th. Check for when your own state's primary is, and stay aware that your chance to adjust your registration ends some time before the primary.

That said, here are some of the values to which I will be paying attention when selecting among presidential candidates, as well as among contenders for other government offices.

Economics: In times of trouble, as well as in good times, excuse is often found to raise taxes and increase spending in government. We all know unemployment is up, and you may also know that inflation and gas prices are on the rise. Important as this issue is to our national prosperity, I will favor a candidate who will cut taxes and cut spending; who favors the economic theories of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, theories of the power of the free market, over those of John Maynard Keynes and Carl Marx, proponents of heavy socialization and central planning. I want a candidate who will privatize those services which are not profitable for the people when government-run, which is nearly all of them. That government governs best which governs least, and coordinates most.

Constitutionalist: As peace and order depend on the rule of law, the candidate must uphold the constitution of the United States, support the separation of powers, and the established, amendment, system of altering this important document as the need arises and the people agree. I favor a view of reading the constitution as it was intended, as the language was used at the time, and trying to understand how the system of principles recorded in this document applies to the situations of today. It's not perfect, but it's the best system of law instituted in the world in history. Those who clip out portions of the document to support arguments that are clearly out of line with a unified reading of the whole constitution, need not apply.

National defense: Some of the limited, legitimate, services the government needs to handle are keeping the peace and protecting the nation. Police are important, but my point here is about the military, the border, and our international relations. I don't have all the answers, and I don't think anyone else does either, but I expect the Commander-in-Chief to have some idea how to protect our people. I want the national border secured, to protect against terrorists and criminals slipping in; I want a military presence overseas, to discourage military action against us; and I want a real approach on this issue, not more security theater as we mostly see in our airport checkpoints today. How many threats have actually been stopped by the TSA? I can't think of one. If a real threat tries to get on a plane, it will be using a new approach, a black swan, and meantime we're restricting legitimate freedoms and degrading regular people. Protect us, yes, but assess the real dangers in the world, and focus on them. How about a candidate with plans for the governments of North Korea and Iran, eh?

International peace: Given that last point, some might think I want the US raging around the world building nations and subjugating dissidents. Nothing of the sort! There are legitimate threats in the world today, but by and large the people are peaceful, friendly, productive, and interested in making a better future. I want to promote, not just national, but international prosperity. Eventually, someday, I expect a world government; I also expect it will have to be founded on mostly the same principles on which this country is based. I don't really expect to see such a super-nation in my lifetime, even if I live to 120 (as I often mention is a goal of mine), but I would like to see this nation promoting the value of our ideals, in such a way as to have a meaningful, positive impact on the prosperity of each nation, and let this reflect on our own country and the world as a whole.

Ethical: I've head all the jokes about how every politician is corrupt, and they're not without cause. There's a lot of corruption on all levels of government; power corrupts the weak, and the dark-hearted. When long entrenched, it can be difficult to remove a corrupt minority holding power. Nevertheless, I must see an honest, dedicated, public servant, looking out for the good of the people, and willing to stand up to the evils that brew in dark areas, behind closed doors, and veiled in obscure wordings in monstrous bills. Government is not inherently the problem; corruption of the legitimate functions of government, and those unethical enough to promote such corruption, are the problem. Let's get a real, honest, moral, and ethical president in office for a change!

Faithful: To facilitate that honesty and integrity, and to promote the purposes of God, I believe our presidential candidate needs to have faith in our Spirit Father. I'm looking for someone who's put their entire life, and their political motivation, in the hands of the First Creator. True, government must be kept from establishing religion, but government is best guided by people who have found the higher guidance which dwells within each of us.

Victory: Lastly, and in some ways the most important, the candidate must actually have the possibility to win. I won't sacrifice all my principles for victory. I will select a candidate who is less then ideal if I must, and let's face it, I probably will. But in the candidate I do select, I want to see reason to have real hope for the future of the country, the world, the economy, and the people. I don't know that this country can take four more years with President Obama, but I don't trust Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney to beat him in the national election either.

I do still hold out hope that Sarah Palin will run, but if she does or doesn't, I want to make sure I'm not just following personal magnetism, but I can look at the principles on which I can stand, and insist on seeing them in my next president.