I’m an independent voter. My preference is to see the best Republican candidate running against the best Democratic candidate. For me, the best candidate is a person of integrity who campaigns on their strengths and virtues, not on the vices of their opponent. I want logical and practical people who act on solid information, not knee-jerk reactors who oversimplify problems, and demonize convenient scapegoats. Since incumbents often run unopposed in the primaries, I like to vote in the opposing party’s primary to pick the best candidate to run against the incumbent. To that end I dutifully watched the Republican debates on WMUR. Some of the candidates surprised me, impressing me in a way their ads had decidedly not.
Then came the question about climate change. As each of the candidates mumbled something about not knowing enough about the issue, I became disheartened. This has been an issue for over two decades. If they don’t know enough about it by now, it’s because they don’t want to know. They don’t want to know because they strongly suspect that the information will contradict their world view. If elected they would be asked to vote on this issue. Do they intend to become better educated on the subject before they vote, or will they abstain? I don’t think they will do either. I think the attitude indicates a problem solving strategy that is neither logical nor practical, and will lend itself to poor choices on other issues as well.
Lillian Wise
Concord