Qualifications for being POTUS

[eisely]

Leaving aside completely questions of policy preferences and stands on issues, what kinds of experience most qualify an individual to be president of the US? Keeping in mind that there is no training program, we can only look at an individual''s prior experience to judge how they might perform as POTUS.

 

In my mind, being governor of a state is probably the best overall training available. Governors are elected so the individual knows what it is like to be accountable to voters. They also have to deal with a wide range of issues and independent legislative bodies and judiciaries. Granted that governors deal with a much narrower range of responsibilities than POTUS, I still think they have more relevant experience.

 

Secondarily, business and military experience are desirable but less critical. In fact I am dubious of people who have never run for office at any level, but think that their successes in business or a military career immediately qualify them to be POTUS. People like Ross Perot and Wesley Clark come to mind. The problem with such people is that they come from an environment of command and control and more or less instant obedience. Such people tend to have a highly inflated view of themselves, never having gone through the humbling experience of running for office. There are exceptions, such as Dwight Eisenhower, but I submit that our former presidents with basically only military experience have been at best mixed in their performance as POTUS. Andrew Jackson and Ulysses Grant come to mind.

 

Business and military experience are, in my mind desirable, but not critcally necessary. Business experience will make people more sensitive to the impact of government actions on the economy and military experience will help the novice POTUS deal more effectively with military policy and the use of the military.

 

People with only legislative experience, which characterizes most of our current crop of candidates, probably make poor presidents. These folks have typically never actually been responsible for much of anything as an executive at any level. Think of John Kerry and Fred Thompson.

 

People with experience as appointed government executives, such a cabinet secretaries have much to recommend them, depending on their actual performance. As with businees people and senior miliary people, if somebody coming out of a cabinet position has never run for or held elective public office, they are not as qualified as someone who has. For example, I have a high opinion of Condoleeza Rice, but her experience is not as broad as others beyond foreign policy and being chancellor of Stanford University for awhile. How she would do as a candidate and an elected official is to me still a question mark.

 

This why I think that Bill Richardson is in many ways the most qualified of the current field of democrats seeking to be president. Likewise Romney and Giulliani have bona fide executive experience. Granted Rudy was only a mayor, but if I am not mistaken New York City has more people in it than New Mexico.

 

Ironically there is one republican not running for the job who is probably more qualified than the others in both major parties and his name is Jeb Bush. I don''t know if he has presidential ambitions, but if he does he is smart enough to know that nobody with the surname of Bush has a prayer in 2008.

 

[scoutldr]

I think some of the best Presidents had no "qualifications" or prior experience.

[CalicoPenn]

I know what you''re trying to get to, and its a good exercise to really get people to think about he candidates but...

 

The only qualifications that count are the ones spelled out in the Constitution of the United States of America - and there are only three of them:

 

1) Be a Natural Born citizen (or a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution)

2) Be 35 years of age or older

3) Be a resident for at least 14 years.

 

Based on this, everyone now running is qualified to run for the office of President of the United States.

 

Now experience is another matter.

 

Calico

 

[packsaddle]

Thanks Calico, you saved me the trouble. I don''t exactly agree with that 35 year old age thing. Me, I think that as long as we choose to elect apocalyptically stupid people to office, why limit the candidates by age?

[GernBlansten]

I might add that I think it prudent to restrict the presidency to only one member of a family twice removed. I''m getting tired of the Bush/Clinton dynasties.

[scoutingagain]

Gern,

 

If your suggestion was made law, how long do you think it would take for Hillary to file for divorce?

 

SA(This message has been edited by scoutingagain)

[scoutldr]

Unfortunately, for the vast majority of people who bother to vote, their opinions are formed based on 1) what will this President give ME in the form of govt handouts, 2) who is the "cutest" or 3) whatever the poll workers can manage to badger into their brains on their way into the polling place.

 

If you listen to any of Hannity''s "man on the street" interviews...it''s very frightening. Those of us who study the candidates and the issues, trying to cast a meaningful, thoughtful vote are wasting our time....because there are 50 morons out there waiting to cancel each one of us out.

[John-in-KC]

Frankly,

 

What I would like to see?

 

- A man or woman who, after college, enters a public service profession at entry leveland spends at least three years in the trenches: Police, Fire, Paramedic, Armed Forces, teaching, or foreign service.

 

- A man or woman, who after initial public service, returns to graduate school, and completes postgrad professional qualification: That adds Doctors and certain ordained ministers to the list.

 

- A man or woman, who has lived and worked outside the United States for at least four years. Take off the "''MURICA: THE ONLY WAY!" blinders, dagnabbit. We don''t have a monopoly on good ideas.

 

- Finally, someone who shows with the actions of their life that they "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

Dreaming? Probably. My desires? CERTAINLY.

 

Of course, the current Constitutional standard is exactly what CP said.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

But Gern, just like motorcycle helmet laws that are over turned because you can''t protect people from themselves, banning another Clinton or Bush is denying the people to have the goverment they want, or deserve, depending on how you look at it

 

Looking at past presidents of the recent past, the governors have been Reagan, Carter, Clinton,and Bush (not 41), not exactly glimmering role models from either side of the aisle.

 

I would think the next President would be smart to make Jeb Bush director of FEMA, this is a guy with experience in disasters, of any ilk/ There isnt much that can happen that he hasnt seen.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I think a good record of RESPONDING to disasters is a much better metric than just witnessing them.

 

The omitted qualification for president is not having served two terms previously (or one term and more than two years of a partial term).

 

Cheney/Voldemort in ''08

[eisely]

Merlyn, are you then saying that Jeb Bush is the better candidate?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

"Better" compared to whom? His record on church/state issues is pretty bad, he uses the government to promote his religion like his brother & father.

[eisely]

Merlyn,

 

The way I framed the thread at the outset was to not consider stands on issues. Your view of Jeb Bush does not surprise me and you are certainly entitled to your view. But coming back to performance as an executive in a major emergency, would you agree that Jeb Bush''s record is pretty good?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Not living anywhere near Florida, I don''t have any firsthand information on Jeb Bush''s performance in an emergency.

[scoutingagain]

"But coming back to performance as an executive in a major emergency, would you agree that Jeb Bush''''s record is pretty good? "

 

But does he know anything about horses? Who''s campaign has he worked for? Who has he endorsed? How many votes can he bring in?

 

Realistically these are the primary consideration of job "qualifications" for most political appointees for either party. Well, except for knowledge of horses, that may only apply to the current administration.

 

 

SA