Why do all our Presidential candidates have to be Governors or Senators or Lawyers? I am unhappy with being limited to those choices alone. Where is it written that only those with political experience in governmental posts have the where- with- all to handle that huge responsibility? By imposing that limiting qualification on potential candidates we have effectively ruled out 99% of the US population. This is a national blind spot and it has contributed to the predicament in which we find ourselves today.
I believe it is imperative that we expand our purview beyond the party system for selecting candidates so as to open the field to "The Very Best and Brightest among us". To compensate for the lack of governmental experience the President can bring people onto his/her staff with that kind of technical expertise. For President we want someone who has demonstrated wisdom not technical intelligence, strength of character, leadership skills, an ability to communicate effectively and someone who is comfortable within himself. How can we widen the field to identify such people?
There are other fields of endeavor where people with the qualities enumerated above, and others that may be important to the job, similarly rise to pinnacle of their company or organization, of whatever sort. Military Generals are an obvious example. Top Corporate executives, Presidents of University's, Leading Hospital Administrators, the list is endless but they should all be eligible and encouraged to participate in the process.
It would become the job of the media to bring the less well known candidates and their achievements to our attention. As for the critical question of funding we have two possibilities and they are not mutually exclusive: Finding the necessary funding sources through voluntary contributions and/or putting a cap on spending by any one candidate.
12 comments on 2008 Private Sector President
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
That test would have to be far more than a paper and pencil test. It would have to create simulated Presidential level challenges, e.g. "In the War Room". In addition I would want some entry level qualifications established. Qualifications like those set forth in my article. You do demonstrate the necessary "out of the box" thinking that would have to go into this effort. Thanks.
There you go. Obviously you have given this serious thought. I believe we have the beginning here, of a larger patchwork that could be sewn together to bring about our desired outcome. The country is just about ready to consider some new ideas.
I have always felt that the government should be held to same level of accountability we demand and force on public traded companies, especially the accounting standards, with the few exceptions(defense, CIA and other intel areas.)
Mike O. commented Dec 14, 2006
So.. file for office. There is nothing that prevents anyone from doing that. If you want more choices.. be one.
And I personally do not object to people having experience when they apply for a job. I prefer to avoid newbies in any field, especially where great responsibility lies. I much prefer to see a track record that I can evaluate, and I prefer to see some successes in a candidate's history. Having worked both in politics and in the corporate sector, I can attest that there are similiarities, but also some very significant differences. Business managers tend not to do well in political positions because of this.
Lynn G. commented Dec 14, 2006
Your point is an excellent one, John, one I've been making for years. The problem is, most people (including successfulpeople, e.g.) have something in their backgrounds that voters (with the help of commecials) would find abrasive.
greg smith commented Dec 14, 2006
Greg, that's part of the problem, yes. Additionally, the way problems get solved in business, the military, etc, is very different from how problems get solved in the political arena. Wes Clark ran in 2004; he had been the Commander of NATO, negotiated with governments all over the world, but failed as a candidate. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes both made runs and failed (Perot because he couldn't handle the scrutiny that is normal in the public arena, and Forbes because he was simply naive about how to build political support). It's not that people are necessarily abrasive (though some .. like Rumsfeld ... are); it's that they are used to getting things done in a way that does not apply in politics and they can't adjust to the change.
Lynn G. commented Dec 14, 2006
The task, without some underlying political organization, at least for national office, would be daunting. To have a real chance, you'd have to get on the ballot in most of the states, all would be better, though. This takes a certain number of signatures on a petition to be on the ballot for President in EACH STATE. Then there's campaigning, fund raising, going door to door, getting out your voters on election day, ect, ect, ad infinitum. While this might be possible for a grass-roots organization, it would be a huge task.
One idea that has been used in Arizona and, I think, New Mexico, is public funding of campaigns. The candidate has to agree to take NO private donations and if his opponent took private donations, the state would match what the privately funded candidate managed to raise. This would put both sides on an even footing, really and, at least in Arizona, has opened state offices up to pretty much everyone.
The media helping to publish a third party candidate of that type could be more problematic, as the media has a definite liberal bias, whereas most Americans are centrist or conservative. Imagine a right leaning candidate expecting the left leaning media helping him? Remember, Dan Rather was willing to put forward fake memos, then go to great lengths to try to prove them true, to help John Kerry. Dan Rather was one of the most respected members of the television news services at the time.
Mark M. commented Dec 14, 2006
Lynn G.
Hello Lynn, You make some good points and they deserve answers. Leadership skills are readily transferred from job to job. Long experience in a field does not necessarily equate with valuable experience. Some people never learn. Experience as a Governor is very far removed from the demands of a President. There is no preparation in any job that prepares one to be President of the free world. Legal minds and political operatives are a dime a dozen in D.C. and could be hired for their skills. The fact that Clark and Perot failed as candidates does not preclude the possibility that others would succeed. It may have been just them. How many dozens of Senators and Governors have failed as candidates?
John M. commented Dec 14, 2006 |delete
Mark M.
The problems you cite to be overcome are indeed daunting. Public funding is a possibility. I believe that by Nov. 08 the public will be so fed up with the two party system that an Independent Party candidate would be taken seriously.
John M. commented Dec 14, 2006 |delete