Qualifications

It was back in early 2015 and early 2016 that I wrote about the responsibilities of suffrage – that voting is not just a right, it is a privilege, it must be a responsibility too, you should earn it.  You need to be literate – able to read – and politically literate too – able to pass the same Citizenship Test that an immigrant must pass to become a (voting) citizen.  I expanded on that idea by suggesting that persons who know lots and lots about our history, our laws and institutions, and our founding documents ought to have their vote count as two or three average (ignorant) American citizen’s single votes.  Honestly, do you really believe that you should have an equal say in choosing our leaders as an American History professor, or someone who knows as much as he does about our history, etc.?  Yes, I surely believe in “one person, one vote.”  But, perhaps we should give some extra credit to those who devote their lives to being exemplary American citizens.  I stand by both notions today.

But I neglected to add similar qualifications to candidates for public office!  Surely, they need to know more than we voters!

Our Founding Fathers did not put heavy burdens on who might run for public office.  One had to be a citizen, of course.  One had to be 25 to be elected to the House of Representatives and 30 to be elected to the Senate.  Any candidate for the Presidency or the Vice-Presidency had also to be 35 years of age, a natural born citizen (Kamala Harris is a "natural born citizen") and 14 years a resident of the United States.  Nothing else was required.  Nothing.

I would like to propose that no one should be permitted to run for high political office without some prior experience in public service.  U.S. Senator, Governor of a state / Commonwealth, and President of the United States / leader of the Free World should not be your first shot at public service.  I resist the notion that business skills (#45 was a business failure) or acting skills (Terminator at least did no harm) are meaningful preparation for public service, particularly the Chief Executive of a state or a nation.  Indeed, #45 is the only case in American history of someone running for the high office of the presidency with no ... public ... service ... background ... whatever.  Or even public service thoughts.  And that hasn't worked out too well, has it?  Indeed, historians have already judged him as one of our four worst presidents, if not the absolute worst.

In addition, we should require candidates for these high political positions to be able to pass the Citizenship Test at a 3 vote level.  And be able to pass a standardized High School American History final exam with an 85% grade.  Is that too much to ask?

Why now?  Because until recently we have lucked out.  Our Founding Fathers would never have imagined #45.  Never have we ever had such an ignoramus owning the Oval Office.  Every other president self-selected and we mostly got the best of the best.  Until now, until #45.

Put #45 to the test.

• He has called himself “a very stable genius.”  Do you believe that #45 has an IQ of 156?
• Do you believe that #45 could pass our standard Citizenship Test with a 70% grade?
• Do you believe that #45 could pass a high school American History final exam with a 75% grade?
• On August 13th, #45 tweeted: "AOC was a poor student ... this is not even a smart person, other than she's got a good line of stuff. I mean, she goes out and she yaps." @AOC responded: “Let’s make a deal, Mr. President: You release your college transcript, I’ll release mine, and we’ll see who was the better student. Loser has to fund the Post Office.”  #45 did not respond.  Does anyone believe that a) #45 would accept that challenge or b) that he would win the bet?
• #45 speaks at a 4th grade level; do you think that a “very stable genius” can or would do that?
• #45 does ... not ... read.  Not just books, but briefing reports.  There are those who quip that he has not even read the books that he published under his own name, all of which were ghost written.

We just should not let it happen again.

Perhaps you don’t think your president or your governor or your Senator should have such tough requirements?  Why not?  Because you might want to run one day?  OK, open a book and learn something!

Addendum: Friday, 08/21/2020
The president is tasked with nominating the heads of executive branch departments and agencies.  But none of these departments and agencies is supposed to do the president's bidding; they are all (technically) independent.  In keeping with these ideals, the president may NOT nominate as head of any department or agency any person whose career or words betray hostility to the mission of that department or agency.  And he MUST nominate persons whose career and words show an understanding and support of the mission of the department or agency that he is to lead.  Who will check the president?   The top level career employees of each department or agency, that is who.  In addition, the president may not remove the head of any department or agency; only internal mutiny against a leader may remove him from office.  Why these extraneous requirements?  Because some presidents have put in place Secretaries of Labor whose careers have been about fighting labor unions, because some presidents have put in place Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency who were unfriendly to environmental regulation, because some presidents have put in place Secretaries of the Interior who wanted to privatize national parks and allow development and drilling and mining of those lands.

All of the above qualifications and requirements must be carved in stone as part of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.