Arguing Over Directions When We Desire Different Destinations

How can we argue about leaders or even directions when we desire different destinations? Here's the analogy: All of the voters are in a bus and we're deciding on a bus driver. We can look primarily at candidates' bus driving experience etc. if both have the same directions and destination in mind. Then if we don't get there, it's really easy to determine the driver's efficacy. Either we got there or didn't. Either we got closer or not. But that is never the most fundamental issue because the directions are always different (e.g. small government vs. big government, cutting taxes vs. cutting deficits etc.). If one driver wants to take the road on the left and the other driver will drive the road on the right then the difference between drivers themselves (assuming both are at least minimally competent) is secondary to the intended path. If prosperity is North East of us and of the two roads, one heads East and other West then, intuitively ceteris paribus, it's wiser to head East. But if the road East actually leads off a cliff and the road West eventually winds towards the North-East destination then it's wiser to head West. However, the intended path must first be a function of the desired destination. What if we can't find consensus on the destination? Shouldn't we first ensure the public debate focuses on the destination? Shouldn't we first at least attempt to resolve the most fundamental question from which all subsequent questions & answers depend? I want our leaders to articulate their ideal but viable visions of the future. I think there is comparatively little value in them doing so in abstract terms (as they often do). More practically, they should outline measurable, "falsifiable" goals with all of their conceivably attendant ramifications. Necessarily, these goals will have some new "losers" despite their projected overwhelming "winners". It is my contention that if this were done to American presidents starting in the 20th century that the Democrats would get substantially better scores than Republicans. It seems to me that despite the recent, over-hyped attention given to Tea Party activists, Americans have, over time, evolved towards a belief system where the desired "destination" is more in line with the Democrats. Consequently, Democrats' paths have been more effective in leading closer to that shared destination. And as expected, Democratic office-holders have been more effective in driving that road. Just my opinion. P.S. I was inspired to write this after re-reading an infuriatingly specious column in Fortune magazine (from February 11, 2009) that claimed: "It's inarguably true that in the very short-term, the New Deal did not fix the economy. Roosevelt's programs were first passed in 1933 but economists generally agree that the Great Depression did not end until 1939, when the country began preparing for World War II. Unemployment rates, which reached as high as 25%, took several years to recover and did not get below 9% until 1940." MY INARGUABLE REPLY: So the New Deal had to completely "fix" the economy for it to be good? As it even states in that very same paragraph, unemployment was cut in half and but somehow the writer thinks that shouldn't be seen as a good result. MY BIG OBVIOUS POINT: Moving closer to the desired destination should be seen as good! (e.g. Obama's first moves in Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, & Reducing Nuclear in the world). BTW - I dare Tea Party Activists, Libertarians and Right-wing conservatives to describe their desired destinations and specifically outline their preferred visions for the future. (q.v. Rand Paul's theories on civil rights). If they do (ceteris paribus) then the Democrats will have a very good year in 2010.