Deliberate or Deciderate?

One litmus test that is not being discussed by the pundits is a quality that I think is most important for a presidential candidate, that is, the capacity to deliberate with others over a shared enterprise, to have to reach consensus or compromise in the face of principled opposition.
For what we have seen in Bush II's person is the executive capacities of a monarch or latin American dictator: the "executive" in its unbridled capacities, deciderating for us what he thinks is good "for us" even against much principled popular opposition. And, because we have learned that this bossiness is offensive to our ideas of the principled use of executive power, we ought to look to candidates tempered by experience in Congress, and especially the Senate, for their ability to deliberate and use reasoned arguments to persuade others who hold principled positions contrary to theirs. In this way, the new President will implicitly understand that his first obligation is to subject decisions to the space of reasons and, if he is intellectually honest, will move his own position according to what emerges as the best reason--even if it should come from hostile or opposing corridors. This is nothing new to democratic politics, for it goes back to the practice of direct democracy in Athens in the fifth century b.c., wherein the rules of the Council required of citizens (councilmen) to be frank in their speech (parrhesia) in order that the best reasons would be given and the state would move accordingly upon them. What we don't want, I think, is a President holed up with his cabal of defense-contractor and oil buddies spinning us into further catastrophic wars intended to enrich the few at the expense of the citizens.

The new President, therefore, must show his bona fides in this regard. On the democratic aisle, virtually all comers have come from Congress and this is to be seen as a virtue. Clinton, Obama, Edwards--all have had Senatorial experience and this is a good thing. On the republican side, Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee have been governors of their state and have been habituated to the perquisites of executive power: their insolent, bossy tone comes through loud and clear. On the other hand, McCain, Thompson, and Paul have the requisite experience in Congress and it shows.

The question that the voter must ask himself is whether he wants an executive who reasons with them, who is open to what the public thinks is good reason, or whether he wants to be bossed around "for his own good" for the next four years?