With the first presidential primary less than a year away, everyone thinks it is appropriate to voice what they want in the next president.

More than one person has said they want anyone who will end the war in Iraq. Others have said they want a president who will balance the federal budget. Both parameters seem reasonable, but other suggestions strike me as less agreeable. At dinner last week, my brother weighed in on what he wanted in the next president.

"I want a president who will do nothing," he told me without humor or hesitation. He explained that he thought the power of the presidency had grown far too greatly, and he wanted someone who would advocate less executive power. Gradually I have started to buy his argument.

At some point I realized I actually agreed with my brother. Under the last four presidents, the power of the executive has grown faster than the waistline of the average American. While presidents Reagan, Bush I and Clinton did little to limit this expansion, the growth under the current administration is in a league of its own. Of course, neither Democratic nor Republican presidential candidates are even mentioning the issue. Instead, we get guns, God and gays for the 10th election in a row.

When I was reading Jimmy Carter's Our Endangered Values, I was struck by a phrase he used that I don't think I will hear again soon. He wrote that he "accepted his obligation" to enforce Roe v. Wade. He understood the rôle of presidency, but at least one of today's candidates does not. One Republican candidate said he would not appoint anyone who could look at an ultrasound and say it wasn't a life. However you may feel about abortion or the Roe decision, I think we can all agree that the Supreme Court should not be used as a political tool to garner votes among conservatives.

At this point, I care more about what candidates will not do rather than what they will do. I want to hear that these candidates will not veto every piece of legislation with which they disagree. I want to hear that they will not use the judiciary as a partisan political football. Most of all, I want to hear that they will not get this country buried in a conflict without taking the time to get as much information as possible.

I am going to use a similar test to that of the Ephraimites in the Book of Judges. Because security was of such great importance, they used a password to sort out the Ephraimites and their enemies. Their word was "shibboleth." Mine will be "deference." In fact, I am voting for the first person to say "deference" whose politics I can stomach.

According to Judges, the Ephraimites were pretty rigid in their acceptance of pronunciation, for it was in slight variations of dialect that they were able to distinguish between tribes. They went so far as to slay a Gileadite because he said "sibboleth" instead of "shibboleth," which is a bit picky for my taste. I will settle for anything resembling deference to just about anyone, be it Congress, the courts or even state governments.

But thanks to this president, there is one D-word that I will never accept: decider.