They have childhood experiences that define their personalities. Some are stubborn, some are insecure. The prejudices observed in their families, friends, or geographical regions inform their decision making processes.

In the cognitive physiological analysis done in academic circles, one area I believe is of particular importance is the role of moral absolutism in American politics. To be clear, it is not religiosity or being Christian that I take issue with when examining this issue. I am a person of deep faith. I am not ashamed to admit Sikhism informs my social, political and cultural judgments.

What I find fault with the last two presidents is the absence of practicality and reason in the name of moral absolutism platitudes when formulating their foreign and domestic policy agendas.

To begin, President George W. Bush interjected moral platitudes into his foreign policy in a way not seen since Jimmy Carter or Woodrow Wilson. Throughout his presidency, he rejected classical realism’s call for pragmatically promoting the cause of freedom where politically and economically feasible.

We have learned a lot about the Iraq war, and surely it is easy to criticize in hindsight without the pressure of the free world on your shoulders. Regardless, there is a strong argument to be made that part of the rush to go to war was based on an urge to fulfill a moral cause after examining the categorical statements made from the Bush administration before the war began.

The results, both for our nation’s reputation and balance sheet, were disastrous. The image of American soldiers, even when helping Iraqis fight terrorists and build civil society, reminded Middle Easterners of the colonization perpetrated by Western powers such as Britain and France in the earlier part of the century. For the world to see, at least one trillion dollars of red ink was added to the national debt.

More recently, President Obama’s moral calling came for economic justice in domestic politics. In the immediate aftermath of a colossal financial crisis, he insisted his dream of universal health care be made a reality. At a time when every other advanced and emerging country was cutting their budget deficits and investing to make their citizens more productive, Obama led an ugly 18-month crusade for added government spending through health care reform.

Think what you will of how the Affordable Care Act functions and where the power to make medical decisions will come if it is implemented. What is more important is the questionable actuarial calculus used to finance it and the confusion it has caused.

At a time when existing entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security had not been updated to address population trends and the rapid rate of health care inflation, Obama created an entitlement program to cover 32 million people.

Additionally, it is undeniable that part of the climb back to full employment in aftermath of the financial crisis has been the confusion the Affordable Care Act caused employers. From the brightest analysts at Goldman Sachs to the ranks of mom and pop shops across the country, no one can say with any confidence how much the legislation will add to the cost of hiring a new worker.

What these two men did not and do not understand is that the means of policy making are just as important as its ends. The relationships you build — whether it be in the Senate or with a foreign head of state — assure people will listen to your concerns. There is a time and place to introduce initiatives once the urgent tasks of the day are taken care of.

You can be in favor of securing the nation’s interests abroad without having to rush to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. You can be in favor of providing health insurance to the poor and sick without insisting it be done right after the financial services industry almost fell off a cliff. However, no one is above those universal laws of politics.

What I worry about is the reputation our country has earned in the last 12 years with these two men in power. Health care reform and the Iraq War are issues well-covered not only in the American press but in international news as well. At the very minimum, foreign leaders and nationals know what led our leaders to pursue the goals they did. They must wonder how much longer the world’s sole hegemon can afford to throw practicality and reason out the window in the name of a just cause.

One can only hope the next president, whomever he may be, will be governed by a conscience more firmly rooted in the constraints of reality.

Ameek Singh is a State News guest columnist and international relations and political theory and constitutional democracy senior. Reach him at sodhiame@msu.edu.