Over the past few weeks, we have gotten a vivid reminder as to why our presidential election system is so badly in need of repair. Instead of engaging in sober and intelligent debate about the myriad of serious issues that are impacting our nation and the world, candidates for the presidency spent their time:
- Chopping up the tax code with a chainsaw and feeding it into a wood chipper (Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY)
Despite what it sounds like these are not clowns. These are candidates for the presidency of the United States -- all smart, accomplished and successful in their respective fields -- who are doing whatever it takes to make it on the stage for the all-important first Republican debate. Because there is no incumbent and no heir apparent on the Republican side and because the field is so large, the decision regarding who will be able to participate has come down to who is performing best in the national polls. Since it is so early in the race and most of what the national polls reflect is name recognition, candidates have been 'forced' to go to increasingly desperate lengths to get noticed. We can criticize them for lowering themselves to this level, but more importantly we should take a serious look at a process that encourages, almost requires, this type of sophomoric behavior.
More than a quarter century ago political scientist Richard Rose said the biggest problem with the American presidency is that: "What it takes to become president has nothing to do with what it takes to be president."
Rose's point? In order to be president you must be skilled at addressing "complex economic, diplomatic, and military problems in the international system." In order to become president, however, you don't need to show you have these skills at all. Instead you have to do things like raise lots of money, get as much media attention as you can, and address the "parochial concerns" of counties in Iowa and New Hampshire, home to the first in the nation caucus and primary.
Unfortunately Rose's claim that there is an enormous disconnect between what it takes to become president and what it takes to be a good president is even more true today.
Every four years we gather together as a nation to choose the leader of the free world -- the only person we elect collectively as one people. Yet when we do we rely on a hiring practice that is so faulty it would be comical if it didn't have such serious repercussions.
Imagine a company hiring an accountant based on how fast she can run a mile. Or an airline hiring a pilot based on how well he can sing. It would never happen because no company would rely on such an inane hiring practices. Yet quadrennially that is exactly what we do when we set out to 'hire' the president. We ask candidates to exhibit prowess in areas like fund-raising, addressing the concerns of every county in the granite and hawkeye states, televised debating, etc. These are skills, yes, but they are not necessarily the skills that measure whether someone has the intellectual capacity, temperament, knowledge, background and experience to succeed in office if elected.
Until we learn this lesson and reform the selection process in a way that narrows the gap between what it takes to become and be president, we run the risk of continuing to choose people who may be very good on the campaign trail, but perhaps not as adept at governing.