Email This to a Friend
A Modest Proposal for Training Future Presidents
Let's think outside the box when it comes to choosing a leader, shall we?
If God got fed up with us — and who would blame Him — and stepped down, would we want an extensive, well-thought-out process for picking a successor? Would we want to make sure whomever we elected to rule the universe was someone we know to be responsible with the power over life and death and who wouldn’t just smite people because he’s bored?
And would we want to make sure he has a good understanding of physics so we know he won’t mess with Planck’s constant and destroy all matter? Or would we just pick someone off the street and say, “Hey. He seems nice. Let’s give him ultimate power over us all”?
Well, the American presidency is the next most powerful job after God, what with running the world’s most powerful nation and the ability to kill billions. You’d think we’d have a very solid process for figuring out the best person to fill the position, but we have been completely clueless on this for more than two hundred and thirty years. And the Founding Fathers weren’t much help on the task of picking a president, only listing two qualifications: he or she has to be thirty-five years old and has to have been born in this country. Nowadays, that limits the pool of potential applicants to about two hundred million people. Luckily we have a two-party system which somehow uses New Hampshire and Iowa to whittle down all the choices to two.
And we still have no idea how to decide.
In the current election, for example, people say they think Barack Obama would be a good president because he’s inspirational, but if you want inspiration, can’t you buy books or tape sets for that? Others say John McCain has the experience to be president, but experience at what? He’s been in the Senate a long time, but what do they do there? Vote on stuff? You could get the same experience just clicking on a lot of internet polls.
We even debate over which candidate will better improve the economy, which is kind of like trying to choose from a litter of kittens based on which one is best at controlling the weather (hint: it’s usually the calico). It’s like we don’t even know what a president does. No huge corporation is going to hire a CEO just because they just like the cut of his jib; they’re going to want a solid resume showing that the applicant is already experienced doing similar work.
And there’s the rub. As they say, there is no job like the presidency.
Except that isn’t true. There are actually hundreds of people out there whose jobs involve both executive experience and foreign policy experience. People who have to lead both citizens and the military.
They’re called the leaders of foreign countries.
If someone running for president told you of how he turned Uruguay into a powerhouse while fighting off a coup, then he’d have a pretty excellent argument that he would do a good job running America.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Frank J. Fleming writes political humor at IMAO.us and is thankful he's so unbelievably awesome.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
46 Comments
1. Kevin:This obviously an attempt to recreate “A Modest Proposal,” without the talent.
Sep 20, 2008 - 8:17 am 2. Mike Burleson:Frank, we already have such people used to running small “countries”. They are called Governors!
Sep 20, 2008 - 8:41 am 3. BackwardsBoy:Some sort of standardized test for public office would certainly be a good idea. It could include some yes-or-no questions on basic topics like economics and constitutional law. The results could be made public. At least then we wouldn’t have to wade through all the rhetoric to figure out what a candidate knows about the basic nature of our country.
Sep 20, 2008 - 9:13 am 4. nate:From what I’ve seen in recent years, there aren’t many politicians who make the grade.
See, I go the other way. I think selection should be more random. The guy who runs the local gas station is only in bed with one oil company, and probably is bitter towards them too because his contract sucks. He has never been involved in a political scandal. He has never been a lawyer. There are all sorts of negatives he doesn’t have. The same can be said of the retired electrical engineer who goes to my church and millions of other people throughout the country. If we were to pick two or three people by lot and then vote on them we might actually get political reform. They certainly couldn’t be more corrupt.
Sep 20, 2008 - 10:19 am 5. A Modest Proposal for Training Future Presidents:[...] A Modest Proposal for Training Future Presidents Category : Exercise / [...]
Sep 20, 2008 - 10:26 am 6. Jack Okie:I remember a science fiction story from a long time ago where the selection of the President had been automated. Every citizen eligible to vote was evaluated by the selection computers, and the (un)lucky person was notified, not elected.
Of course, that was before hacking became the high art it is today.
Sep 20, 2008 - 10:40 am 7. Zippy:I thought I was reading “The Onion”.
Sep 20, 2008 - 10:44 am 8. Jimmy:I wonder how many politicians we could send overseas RIGHT NOW to be trained? It could be like major league baseball’s farm team program. You got AAA, AA, and A. If they flunk out of A, they don’t return to the U.S. They get shot.
Sep 20, 2008 - 11:10 am 9. DragonHawk:Brilliant, Frank J.:) I love your stuff
Kevin: It was just as talented, just different because Frank J. is…not Swift? They are different people. Look it up on Wikipedia.
Zippy, I thought it was better than The Onion.
Sep 20, 2008 - 11:14 am 10. Ken Mueller:I think you’re on to something here. I mean the idea of asking for some qualifications before nominations. For example, our military forces require our future generals to take courses in how to be a general before they get selected. The RCs don’t just elect Tom, Dick or Harry to be the Pope, do they? OK, who will call for a constitutional convention?
Sep 20, 2008 - 11:15 am 11. Ace O'Dale:This is exactly why “Governors” tend to become President rather than Congress…people.
Sep 20, 2008 - 11:43 am 12. cedarford:On a serious note, we do have a training problem. Some other countries train their best and brightest at their elite schools with a focus on government service, and learning asepects of running a large organization. They are grounded in economics, and their countries internal and external relations. The promising graduates then are giving junior spots at ministries, where they assist a senior official and “learn the art”. It could be on a French trade delegation, then a stint at a ministry in charge of construction and maintenance of French roads. Then a progression to a higher official setting minor policy and overseeing others at the Utilities and Technology ministry.
The Chinese and Japanese also do this to get well-rounded people.
The US lacks a systemic approach, and relies on leaders with huge holes in their knowledge and experience in one or more of the following areas:
1. Negotiation akilla. 2. Military, and plausible quals to be Commander in Chief. 3. Economics of State or nation. 4. Science & Technology. Have a curious, open mind. 5. Leading large organizations, with proven executive, ability to assimilate new info rapidly and make timely generally good decisions, and good crisis management performance skills. 6. Experience abroad in understanding other nations and setting foreign policy. 7. Law & ethics. 8. Superior communications and “salesmanship” skills.
We sometimes are successful in plugging or partially plugging those holes with a leader that is aided by good advisors and either good intuitive skills (FDR) or high intelligence (Nixon, Clinton, Lincoln).
But our system sucks, and relies on who can dredge up the best Bible quote and say why he loves Jesus the most of the candidates(Republicans), or why they best show diversity and love of abortion as the greatest American freedom (Democrats) – or deliver the killer sound bite – all too much. We elevate candidates like Dubya and Obama, have the ability to verbally fellate big bucks donors and make a “pleasing” candidate in front of TVs, to frontrunner status.
And debates and interviews foolishly deceive the public that the expectation of all-wise journalists is leaders should be “quiz kids” with perfect knowledge on any subject. And the audience should grade the media’s selected “students”. Which is crap. No executive leader should micromanage or become an expert on minutea.
Military awareness is very important because in this area, the President truly does routinely have to send people out to die. They also have the nuclear “button”. We had the “blessing” that came from a long string of Presidents who from bad luck, had wartime experience. That Revolutionary, Civil War, WW, Korea, Vietnam experience stocked the White House with a majority of our Presidents, who at least then had an idea of CiC leadership. Supplemented by those Presidents with peacetime draft/militia military/civilian liason to military experience. But recently have found Prez candidates and VPs who have had long successful careers but never served and lack any understanding of military life, tactics, capacities. Governors, VPs, and seasoned military officers appear to have the most background in critical Presidential skills.
The weakest area is “foreign policy” and has much as the media harps on it, very few Americans have relevant training. There is an allusion that academics have it, but in truth outside Foreign Service generalists, the field is populated with PhD specialists that may know everything about Peru with a specialty in agricultural labor and commerce, but nothing about China. Or Dr Rice, who knew all sorts of stuff about Russia and E Europe, but dirt about the ME and Muslim world when she was advising Dubya.
And we have a coterie of “foreign policy expert” Congress Reps – who stake their claim as lawyers with no formal education in foreign matters by their length of time in Washington and number of Congressional junkets they took over 20-30 years to see the local dog&pony shows. An example of how deficient their knowledge is, is all the Senatorial “Iran experts” that made countless trips to see the Shah, expore Iran’s rapid progress towards “Westernization and freedom-loving”, and enjoy lavish banquets and colorful local dancers. When the Islamic Revolution happened, the “Iran hands” where shocked. That wasn’t the “real Iran” they learned about on their visits. Must be a small obscure, unimportant minority…..
Currently, there are only a few thousand true American “foreign policy generalists” most are in the military and Foreign service, and tend to follow a career arc away from politics. Fortunately, they do show up in senior policy circles. And what they need is a President that hasn’t memorized the name of the leader and capital of Mozambique – but a leader who can assimilate good advice and make decisions and adjust or alter those decisions if necessary.
Maybe we should have training and experience expected outside what the “Sacred Parchment”, in all it’s wisdom, neglects. And people that want to run expected to work on their deficiency areas.
A Party that recognizes we need more that 35, a US citizen as quals – would do well by itself and gain a competitive advantage over a Party that does it the “ad hoc” way, as it works for the future & cultivates candidates for high level executive jobs in States or National Office. Works to rotate promising legislators and academics into executive positions – and takes the better execs to gain foreign experience on aiignments abroad not to fill in “quiz kid” knowledge, but how to understand foreign peers and how to best negotiate with them.
And, it should be added, that the military is the one place where certain officers, depending on time and placement, can gain all 8 “Presidential skills”.
Sep 20, 2008 - 11:49 am 13. Eric:Our presidents have always been a reflection of the face of the people.
Sep 20, 2008 - 11:50 am 14. cedarford:I still think, with all of it’s absurdity and confusion, it is the best system.
Hamilton believed in a cadre of trained politicans to hold office.
Jefferson believed the best choice is ‘the common man’.
I’m still voting eith Jefferson!
Ken Mueller:
I think you’re on to something here. I mean the idea of asking for some qualifications before nominations. For example, our military forces require our future generals to take courses in how to be a general before they get selected. The RCs don’t just elect Tom, Dick or Harry to be the Pope, do they? OK, who will call for a constitutional convention?
There wouldn’t have to be a Constitutional Convention.
Just Parties recognizing a new standard would help them competively, and one gaining a competitive advantage by offering the public a candidate that meets their expectations in say, 6 of 8 Presidential skill areas and convinces them that they can plug up the gap areas by good use of advisors, as well as use more expert advisors in areas they do have skill in to make a better team product.
Once the bar is raised to expect those qualifications, it may inhibit some people like Barack Obama, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Pastor Huckleberry – who may be really, really good in 2-3 of the 8 or so areas the public will want candiadtes to be strong in – but overall, it would be an improvement to screen out by peoples expectations, bad candidates. Such as Jimmy Carter and Dubya, who had serious skill deficiencies in areas. And screen out the unqualified cranks like Alan Keyes and Dennis Kucinich from sucking up media time. While allowing candidates like McCain and Bill Clinton and Reagan and Romney and Palin and Hillary to show the public why they can perform well in all skill areas – even the ones they have less individual skill at.
Sep 20, 2008 - 12:01 pm 15. Chris in Toronto:Thanks for your informative comment, cedarford.
Sep 20, 2008 - 12:50 pm 16. seguin:1. Frank J, that wasn’t your funniest, but it was pretty good. I guess you keep the A material back at imao, eh?
2. Anyone taking this seriously, don’t. Think about it. Who would decide what questions to ask and what they’d be taught? That exerts too much influence and restricts the pool of candidates. Bad stuff. We need schemes that INCREASE competition, like run-off voting.
Sep 20, 2008 - 12:58 pm 17. jvon:I was well into this before I realized who the author was. Good to see you, Frank.
Sep 20, 2008 - 1:35 pm 18. Ed Wallis:“jvon” recognizes this author; I DO NOT.
This IS a JOKE, isn’t it?!
Otherwise, a moron has spewed Rousseau-native style über-dumbness into PJM.
Information, please?
Sep 20, 2008 - 1:55 pm 19. wGraves:So you want to bring back procounsels? Well, they worked for Rome. Pilate wasn’t as bad as his press makes him out. The States currently run the farm club, but there’s no foreign policy component. I think we should consider auctioning former governors to other nations on Ebay. We may as well get some cash for them. Maybe Arnold could run Austria for awhile.
Sep 20, 2008 - 2:12 pm 20. DragonHawk:Ed Wallis. It’s a joke. Frank J. is something of a parodist. Go to IMAO.US and look at his “In My World” stuff. Some people don’t find it funny, but he always makes me bust a gut. Glad to see him here on PJM. He’s kind of like a right wing Dave Barry.
Sep 20, 2008 - 2:18 pm 21. cedarford:seguin – That exerts too much influence and restricts the pool of candidates. Bad stuff. We need schemes that INCREASE competition, like run-off voting.
Any executive search HR pro will tell you that unless to screen and restrict by bona fides, you will waste serious time and resources going through an overly large field and may get confused and forgetful and lose great potential
selectees for more recent interviewees that were fresher and still a “strong impression”.
Sorry, but your idea to “increase competition” by adding masses of candidates is quite counterproductive.
It was bad enough at the early Democrat appearances where 5-6 candidates 98% of Democrats were seriously interested in had their air time and questions curtailed by 6 other fringe rejects offering nothing but a chance to watch them preen their egos and steal time from the credible candidates.
It reached it’s maximum, most ridiculous proportions when Cali’s “open process” to recall the governor lead to some 539 candidates, completely filling an auditorium, and half of them shouting and wearing costumes so they might get “the winning soundbite du jour”.
====================
As matters stand, Parties do an OK job of selecting from thousands of talented people to run, and go to the next level. At a certain point, as the office and power and ability to affect business and special interests groups -unfortunately, the candidate needs lots of outside money and media time…
Then the process gets skewed to those that have some “compelling” biography, celebrity, and various media appeal – like tits, war hero status, or thick, silky hair. And skewed to those like Dubya and Obama who are gifted at verbally fellating big bucks donors and who are thought to be good tools to invest in based on backroom promises.
That skewing screws the public because it is high positions in Congress, Governorships, Attorney General, and President where you end up with Parties running candidates with huge holes in their abilities because they can get the donor bucks and have high Media “Q”s.
( Something the Parties avoid more successfully in lower office where ability does matter, and selection based on quals for office are clear – like for Commissioner of Education in state, or public safety, or staffer apponted to the US Senate Judiciary or Foreign Relations Committee – who generally tend to be smarter and more competent than the Senator they advise who happened to be a former baseball star, heir to a fortune, or a slick-talking good looker media and donor thriller – dumber than a pithed frog.
If we instead have parties raise expectations – and say to the public we vetted our candidate and they meet the 6 critical skills areas needed to be a successful Congress Rep – maybe there would be less of the same old “frick and frack” involving Republicans and Democrats whose candidates for high office are less-qualified than the ones tey field for lower positions. All too much, we end up with people going for powerful statewide or national elected office who don’t have a clue about the state or national economy, know nothing about science or military affairs. Never negotiated or managed a crisis outside a kids fight or an important hairstyle decision that had to be made right then in the Salon..
You know, where the Congressional race ends up with a former famous TV newsreader with an IQ of 90 who saved a drowning dog, loves children – who faces a sharklike lawyer who prosecuted a famous criminal and is a real “crimedog” and “cares about the environment” but a deeper inquiry would show he is a total zero on knowledge, skills, and ability to work with others outside those areas.
Sep 20, 2008 - 2:28 pm 22. citizenfist:Extremely naive.
The problem in our system lies with you, me and every American. We are all so busy criticizing or deflecting criticism, laying blame and passing judgment or simply following party line like automatons – we are not asking the tough questions; sidetracked with lipstick and ‘high school’ centered personal attacks.
To be American is to be independent; to demand that our leaders are capable of representing our nation by virtue of an informed and engaged citizenry. To demand that our media and information services remain transparent and independent of special interest and monomaniacal influence. How can we allow one, two or even a handful of issues
It is enough of this partisan/crybaby bullsh*t, while this country falls apart. Divide and we will be conquered!
Sep 20, 2008 - 2:32 pm 23. Ed Wallis:DragonHawk –
IMAO is a <B<delightful site! I just never connected the name with the site…heh.
Sep 20, 2008 - 3:06 pm 24. Koblog:As has been pointed out by others, we elect governors, successful military generals and former vice presidents. And none of them should be lawyers.
This election is driving us nuts because we have three Senators (one very wet behind the large ears) and a Governor running.
One way or another, we are going to get a Senator as president.
Generally, not a good idea.
Sep 20, 2008 - 4:17 pm 25. C R Krieger:The comment that our Governors are those in training to be President is a good one. But, there is also “continuing education” in DC, at Fort McNair. Back when Harry Truman was President the new National War College was a place he would go to and listen to lectures on issues like foreign policy and strategy. This is not a plug for Senator McCain, who is a graduate. Rather, it is to say that for me it would be doubly impressive if someone like Senator Obama or Senator Biden or Senator Clinton (or some Governor who happened to be in town) were known to have stopped down and listened to an hour lecture and then 30 minutes of give and take between the regular students (rougly 75% military and 25% foreign service/other executive branch) and the speaker.
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, you can learn a lot by just listening.
Regards — Cliff Krieger
Sep 20, 2008 - 4:43 pm 26. ZEITGEIST:[...] FROM FRANK J.: A Modest Proposal for Training Future Presidents. [...]
Sep 20, 2008 - 4:59 pm 27. JF:I’ve always wondered why we need to pass a test and get a license to drive, fish and hunt but not to be politicians or parents!
Sep 20, 2008 - 5:09 pm 28. Micha Elyi:Mike Burleson at Sep 20, 2008 – 8:41 am won the thread.
Meanwhile, the author of this article Frank J. Fleming has been sent out of the country to be ruled over by Paul Bremer and his enthusiastic US State Department team of expert. Ha ha.
Sep 20, 2008 - 5:23 pm 29. anonymous:Instead of the current election system, the president should be chosen from a pool of contestants on a reality TV show.
Every week, another contestant is voted off, and the last person left is made president.
Sep 20, 2008 - 5:38 pm 30. ic:We have lots of trained people to run the govt. We call them bureaucrats. Whoever the president is, he/she has to depend on the bureaucrats to run the govt. How much can Bush impose his foreign policy on the State Dept.? Not enough, the bureaucrats have their own minds. The presidential candidates only need to tell us what they think US’s role is in the world. If we want to police the big bad world, we must elect a Republican; if we want to be a caregiver to the dysfunctional world: an Oprahnesque Democrat fits the bill.
Oh, all govt. trainings don’t do the Brits, or the French much good, else we will be following their lead. The Chinese have their own well-trained parrots to do the Party’s biddings. The Japanese? Lately two of their well-trained PMs have to resign. The Russians? That’s another story.
Btw, our Republic is strong enough to survive our presidents’ mismangement. It’s unconscionable of us to put them in charge of wobbly small govts. who are not likely to survive the American trainees’ blunders.
Sep 20, 2008 - 5:42 pm 31. Ozwitch:“JF:
I’ve always wondered why we need to pass a test and get a license to drive, fish and hunt but not to be politicians or parents!”
How would you create such a test? How the heck can ANYONE know what it is to be a parent until they are one? I sure as heck had no idea until my child was born. I didn’t know what I’d feel, what I’d do, and what I would think. Oh, sure I’d read lots of books and listened to my friends who had children and my parents, and I formed opinions on what I thought was important, and I laid down ground rules for myself and my partner, but honestly, until it happened to me, I had no idea what I was talking about. Because the reality is so different from what you think it is. Your whole being is changed by the experience. All the previous opinions you had count for nothing.
So how do you test for that? What questions can you ask other than extremely general ones on morals, guidance, wisdom, sacrifice etc to give your child a good chance at life? And how can you or anybody else possibly tell whether you will abide by those questions?
Tests are meaningless in this context. How do you know whether someone will make a good President? Nobody does, until they’re in the job unfortunately. Some rise to the occasion, some flub.
It’s not the same as parenthood, but you can probably draw some parallels regarding preparedness and how you use others’ experience. But in the end it’s your own character which determines what kind of leader you are, because it’s how you adapt to a situation where you only realize how little you know when you are dumped in it.
Which is why it’s not about experience, or qualifications, or background, or anything else. It’s about what kind of person you are.
Sep 20, 2008 - 6:32 pm 32. Emery Calame:Whoever was saying that some nations train people to rule by educating them and placing them as assistants to junior ministers was refering to a civil service beaurocracy and not elected office. We in the US already have professional career civil service who are trained from youth to run various aspects of the country including economics and foreign policy. They serve the elected officials as employees of the federal government or state governments. What did you think the state department was? Or the department of energy?
Good Lord.
Do you honestly think the president just sits in the Oval Office by his (or her) self after taking the oath of office and does everything from scratch with no input or advice from government assistants and officials more experienced than him (or her)?
Sep 20, 2008 - 7:35 pm 33. Helen:Do we really want to have systemic training for our presidents when our foreign service corps demonstrates what a disaster that can be? Do we want America-hating elitists from Georgetown, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia—who think they are better than the common folks—to have that decisive a role in shaping the future president? It’s bad enough that many of our presidents went Ivy though W has shown that the Ivy doesn’t have to shape one’s world view. Not everyone is as strong-minded as W.
What China, Europe, Russia does is not exactly a recipe for success, now, is it? Did American political and economic ideas not have to be the basis for the rescue of each of these in more than one way? Why were their well-trained government elites unable to think creatively enough to solve their political and financial problems without our assistance?
Looking at the Democrat party, we see what we get when we have our politicians imbibe the kool aid from their elitist training—they hate America first and think socialists and communists know better.
Look at the State Department, systematically trained, they believe for the most part that they serve other governments and not ours. They consistently undermine our president believing that they know better than he does. Do we want a president who is trained to disregard us and undermine the will of the American people?
Barack Obama is proof of what we’ll get if we go the systemic-training route. He’s a product of the Saul Alinsky system of training. Obama, though he’s taught Const. Law, neither knows nor appreciates the Constitution. His regard is only for Alinsky’s system of training. If ever elected, he’ll govern not according to the Constitution (or with a very light cover of it) but according to the training he received from Alinsky.
The Constitution provides ample qualifications for the presidency. The Founders in their infinite wisdom ignored a systemically trained bureaucrat for the presidency. Let us rejoice and be glad in it.
Sep 20, 2008 - 7:47 pm 34. Don Meaker:In ancient Rome, there was a “Path of Honor”: Those who would serve the state would begin with low level administrative position, then run for higher and higher positions as they gained experience. The positions were for a year, so after a year taking care of the State, they could take a year off and tend to their network of clients and friends. Their position in the Senate was gained for the rest of their life by their first election. More popular leaders could be elected over and over. Gaius Marius was elected Consul 7 times, finally dying in office.
The problem: Augustus and the early rulers of the Principate held over 40 positions, with the work actually being done by his network of unelected slaves. Of course the slaves tended to be corrupt, much like our congressional staffers and lobbyists.
Sep 20, 2008 - 8:25 pm 35. Don Meaker:An amendment could require some qualifications: 1. Commissioned military service,
2. Executive experience as a mayor,
3. Executive service as a state cabinet officer or federal service as an under-secretary,
4. Executive service as a state governor,
5. Federal service as a cabinet officer.
That would encourage career government service, but hinder long service in any position. This would also deny the opportunity for service to professional managers from our private sector or from academia. A quick review of our past presidents would find virtually none who met all requirements. I submit that all candidates for POTUS and VP have been professional governing officials for about 10 years.
Sep 20, 2008 - 8:36 pm 36. AK Craig:Frank, awesome as always. Now tell us about Doug!!!
Sep 20, 2008 - 8:39 pm 37. always right:The idea of a ’selected few’ in training and gaining governing experience had been in practice in Europe for a while now.
See how well that worked out for the general Europeans.
Sep 20, 2008 - 9:17 pm 38. ic:D. Meaker:Of course the slaves tended to be corrupt, much like our congressional staffers and lobbyists.
I think our politicians are more corrupt than their “slaves”. Just figure this out: Why after a couple of terms in Congress, most Congress people/ senators became multi-millionaires? Either we pay them too much, or …
You say lobbyists are corrupt. But “bribers” need “bribees”. Who corrupted Charlie Rangel? If they don’t have our tax money to earmark to their cronies, then their cronies would not give them sweetheart deals and millions of campaign contributions, then they will not be corrupted. So should we say we taxpayers are the corrupters? We return same politicians back year in year out hoping they will bring home the beacon. We let them tax that guy behind the tree, and hope we can share the loots.
Sep 20, 2008 - 10:01 pm 39. john from cinncinati:we already have term limit laws on the books to move on the entrenched pols. they just go on to another job and screw that one up. they learn how the game is played, then take their clown act on the road. but i don’t think term limits are federal. so you think a military guy has had some of the right training, to become the potus?
Sep 20, 2008 - 10:41 pm 40. Deus:The electoral process was designed in the 18th century. How times have changed!
We still run Third World politics. The most advanced nation in the World?
Don’t get depressed. Go out and change for the better!
Sep 20, 2008 - 10:55 pm 41. jaimeshawn:I like nate’s idea best. I think congress could be vastly improved by randomly selecting people to fill the role for a couple years – Sure some of those selected would be criminals; Some would be insane; but if only 10% of the population are criminals and only 20% are nuts, it would be a huge improvement over the congress critters we have now.
I am also so under-whelmed by the two major parties’ picks for president for the last 20 years that I can see a random process there likely being an improvement as well.
Sep 21, 2008 - 9:25 am 42. LeatherPenguin » An IMAO Moment:[...] A Modest Proposal for Training Future Presidents We even debate over which candidate will better improve the economy, which is kind of like trying to choose from a litter of kittens based on which one is best at controlling the weather (hint: it’s usually the calico). It’s like we don’t even know what a president does. No huge corporation is going to hire a CEO just because they just like the cut of his jib; they’re going to want a solid resume showing that the applicant is already experienced doing similar work. Bookmark to: var disqus_url = ‘http://leatherpenguin.com/wordpress/?p=3963 ‘; var disqus_title = ‘An IMAO Moment’; var disqus_message = ‘A Modest Proposal for Training Future Presidents%0AWe even debate over which candidate will better improve the economy, which is kind of like trying to choose from a litter of kittens based on which one is best at controlling the weather (hint: it’s usually the calico). It’s like we don’t even know what a president does. […]%0A%0ABookmark to:%0A’; View the entire comment thread. [...]
Sep 21, 2008 - 11:22 am 43. Blatant Reality » Blog Archive » Boring Sunday:[...] like writing about nothing. Therefore, I’m just going to send you to Pajamas Media to read Frank J’s proposal on how we need to train our future presidents. Enjoy. Bookmark and Share: sociallist_80da121e_url = [...]
Sep 21, 2008 - 1:57 pm 44. Deus:jaimeshawn:
Random picks with a background check? It would work. Better than Bush. Or SaPa.
Sep 22, 2008 - 1:45 pm 45. WR Jonas:I absolutely reject the notion of some elite foreign trained, snot nosed ,self obsessed, delusional being the best qualified to be president. Leaders are men or women of experience and desire and ability. Not college trained prigs. I believe it was WF Buckley who opined that he would rather be governed by the first 200 people in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard. I hope I got that quote right but you get the point.
Sep 23, 2008 - 7:28 pm 46. Is there a better way to pick a president? — Cranach: The Blog of Veith:Let us squelch this ridiculous idea before it ever takes root.
To all the BDS people out there; how many single engine jet fighters have you landed?
[...] J. Fleming offers A Modest Proposal for Training Future Presidents: If God got fed up with us — and who would blame Him — and stepped down, would we want an [...]
Sep 26, 2008 - 4:42 am