I finally watched the Charlie Gibson interview with Sarah Palin. I think it was successful in that she survived and stuck to the talking points. I don't even think her nervousness and obvious discomfort in deviating from rehearsed answers hurt her. Even her lack of knowledge in regards to foreign affairs and unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine did not derail the interview.
And this is what is truly troubling.
I really believe many voters, particularly those who are McPalin supporters anyway, watched her squirm and react like an unprepared student to many questions and thought "well, I don't know what the Bush Doctrine is either." Well, average American voter, news flash: you're not running for president.
I don't understand why we don't approach this like a job interview. We are hiring these people to govern our country, yet voters' decisions are based on factors like gender, race, age, parental status. And of course the best way to pick a president: Who would you rather have a beer with? I want my president to be smart, tested, and confident. To decide who would be the best leader we should evaluate not only what the candidate has done, both privately and professionally, but the candidate's governance plan and basic knowledge.
Maybe to even be a presidential or vice presidential candidate those vying for the office should take some sort of test. Maybe the PAT: Presidential Assessment Test. The PAT would cover vocabulary, world and U.S. history, economics, law, international relations, and geography. The PAT could be administered early in the campaign, perhaps even before declaring candidacy. Our candidates would know what the Bush Doctrine is, where other countries are, political theories, and current world events. Maybe the candidates wouldn't be the type of people you'd want to have a beer with or see at the local PTA, but they would be smart, knowledgeable, and tested.
Just because anyone can be president, does not mean that just anyone should be president. That is not elitist. It is the same approach employers use in hiring. America owes it to itself and the rest of the world to use this same serious approach in hiring our next administration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Candice, great blog! But I do have to take issue with some of your Presidential Aptitude Test. So would anyone who wishes to run have to pass this exam in a subject of say, economics? For example, would a democrat be not allowed to run for the presidency when they fail to grasp concepts such as the law of unintended consequences or supply and demand? Would such a candidate be forced to acknowledge that popular programs such as medicare and medicaid by guaranteeing the health care needs of patients unable to pay for services artificially raises the demand of medical services and thus drastically increasing the costs of health care? Would a democrat be forced to know the distinctions between realist, neo-liberal, and marxist takes on foreign policy and actually be disqualified from running for office if they don't dogmatically adhere to one or the other? Finally, wouldn't this Presidential Aptitude Test pretty much preclude 90% of all campaign commercials since almost none of them give their quotes or facts or figures within their actual contexts? Would we have anyone left to vote for?
ReplyDelete