THE PROBLEM OF PICKING A PRESIDENT
How We Get Jobs Now
We’ve all interviewed for jobs and know that the purpose of the interview is to understand how well suited we are for that position. Do we have the experience and expertise to shine? Can we work well with the team? Do we fit into the corporate culture? While the process is frequently flawed, the fact is that in most cases, it works. Employers only rarely get the kind of surprise that makes it necessary to axe the employee.
How We Elect the President
Instead of figuring out what we need in a President, we rely on the campaign process, which is highly flawed, and, no matter which party you vote for, usually ends up with less-than-optimal results.
Instead of starting with a large pool of interested and qualified candidates, we have limited it down to those who:
1. Can raise a huge amount of money
2. Are well-known or incumbents
3. Have successfully hidden past flaws, missteps and unpopular views
4. Care more about power than serving (and the opportunity to get rich down the road)
This leaves a very restricted candidate pool and not necessarily the best people for the job.
A big part of the problem is that we don’t actually have criteria. What makes a person a potentially great President? If you don’t have a good answer, you won’t find this person. Hiring managers always know what they need, so they do better.
We trust that they will do what they say, even as history has shown that few actually do this. For all his flaws, having been a CEO meant that Trump knew he had to try to deliver on his promises. Politicians, in general, don’t believe they have to do this.
To even get a chance to run, most people have to come up through the political system and align with a party. The two major parties control the nomination and campaign process, which is designed to eliminate all other parties from having any chance to compete.
The process itself is not an interview. Candidates have carefully constructed debates, which aren’t real debates at all. They have their campaign ads, written by marketing pros. They appear on talk shows, highlighting skills like humor, instead of showing how they would deal with real issues. They engage heavily on social media which is not only censored, but also doesn’t allow questions or comments which candidates must answer. On the whole, candidates are unchallenged and don’t have to give any real details on how they would achieve their vaunted goals. Remember Mr. Hope and Change? What did that even mean?
Reality Show Antics
Most campaigns look like the worst of the reality shows. When I was in grammar school, we voted on the 1960 election. Yes, I am that old. Our little first grade class elected Kennedy. Why? Because he was good looking and he had a daughter near our age. When I began to vote myself, I was shocked to discover that many people use the same kind of criteria. It would be rare to find a person who is both qualified to do the job of President, and who is also a media star. We wouldn’t have elected Lincoln had he faced the process now.
I’ve heard people say that people like Nixon and Trump don’t seem presidential. What does that mean and why should we care? Trump lowered taxes for most of us (if we actually paid taxes in the first place). He started the process to heal the Middle East with the Abraham Accords and much more. Having been successful in business, he had developed abilities to work with a very diverse population and to broker deals. This is a skill set essential for a president. Living in California, I have to hear Gov. Newsom speak. He’s famous for saying almost nothing with a lot of words. His accomplishments deliver what you expect. Nothing.
As noted, the process is more a reality show than a job interview. Like it or not, we are not voting someone “off the island.” We are trying to pick someone who understands that problems that most of us face and has new solutions for them (instead of the old ones that haven’t worked). They have to represent our interests around the world, not let Europe tell us what to do. They have to be frugal with our tax money and justify expenses, seeking to cut where possible. We have to do this with our own budgets.
Solutions
I’m sure you have additional ideas to share with me, so post them here. I think we should first establish qualifications for the job. What is the job of president and what abilities does he/she have to have? We have to focus on these in the election process rather than making it a popularity show. This means that candidates must:
1. Debate just like college debaters having real topics they do not get to choose and having to defend their own position and counter the other candidate’s views. Debates are not limited to the two major parties
2. Have limited funding so that no one has a dollar advantage in an election
3. Have a clear platform online and in print that lists the problems they see the country has and how they intend to solve them.
4. Not be forced to be limited by party. Anyone can try to run and even if they identify with a party, they do not have to abide by the various platform limitations.
5. Not have access to social media during their candidacy. Instead, they can hold townhalls, in person or online, which must allow voters to question them.
6. Not appear on talk shows or other entertainment vehicles. Again, this makes it more a popularity contest than a job interview.
7. Have a job interview that has a panel of people from different viewpoints asking them questions they do not get to see in advance.
These ideas might help. We also should, of course, fix the voting problem by requiring voter ID (which means people voting by mail must go back and re-register in person). We have to audit the process much more carefully. And much more.
The job is too important to be given to the Survivor.
