Jump to content

Qualifications For A Presidential Candidate...


Leon Troutsky
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been hearing for years now about how this candidate wasn't qualified and that candidate wasn't ready and this other one doesn't have "what it takes".

So what do YOU think are the qualifications for someone to be president and, most importantly, why?

For example, if you're going to say "business experience", explain clearly why business experience connects to the job of president of the United States.

And who among the current crop of candidates running for office do you think is most qualified and (again, most importantly) why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I agree with them for the most part.

2. They have at least some experience directly in politics so they know how the system works and have working relations to help speed things along.

3. They have a certain DGAF personality that tells you they're not political robots *cough*Hillary*cough* and that they're not going to take **** once in the Oval Office.

Sanders is the only one that checks off on all of them and I'm glad to see his latest surge in the polls. I wouldn't mind Kasich but I know full well he doesn't stand a chance in ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I agree with them for the most part.

2. They have at least some experience directly in politics so they know how the system works and have working relations to help speed things along.

3. They have a certain DGAF personality that tells you they're not political robots *cough*Hillary*cough* and that they're not going to take **** once in the Oval Office.

Sanders is the only one that checks off on all of them and I'm glad to see his latest surge in the polls. I wouldn't mind Kasich but I know full well he doesn't stand a chance in ****.

I'll wait before commenting on the qualifications, but I will say that my own views is that if the GOP balks on Jeb Bush (e.g., seriously looks for another candidate) that Kasich is the most likely alternative. I don't see them nominating Walker or Rubio. I've said many times that Kasich has the strengths of Bush and Walker without the baggage.

That said, he needs to get a good speech writer soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe military experience should be a requirement. How are you going to be commander of something you've never been a part of? That's like walking onto the Falcons and never played a snap of football in your life and being made team captain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe military experience should be a requirement. How are you going to be commander of something you've never been a part of? That's like walking onto the Falcons and never played a snap of football in your life and being made team captain.

Or perhaps the military could just be a much smaller part of the equation & not a primary factor in how we deal with the rest of the world. Lots of countries in this world are doing much better than we are, and largely because they're spending their money on their own people instead of focusing on blowing up someone else's people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view the president as more of a high-level manager. Not someone who needs to know everything about all aspects of government, let alone all aspects of relevant policy. But someone who can identify people with expertise and delegate responsibility to the right people. So for me, the first thing is the ability and experience in acting as a high-level manager.

Business experience can provide that sort of managerial background, but it is not guaranteed. Carly Fiorina has CEO experience with one of the largest corporations in America, and she sucked at her job. She horribly mismanaged HP and was fired. So business experience is not automatically a qualification.

Military background can provide managerial experiences, as well. Generals certainly are required to delegate to experts and synthesize information, and in the military most of those decisions have life-and-death consequences. So I tend to give more weight to high-level military experience as a qualification than I do business experience. But even here there are limits.

I think perhaps the best experience a person can have to prepare them for governing the country is actually governing a state. Governors tend to make the most effective presidents - Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush (and yes, Bush was effective even if his policies sucked). I have often said that government is not a business and you cannot run government the same way. And government is not the same as the military, either. But governments in large states ARE very similar to national government, so for me that might be the best qualification for president is successful experience governing a large state.

The second qualification that I look for is a combination of intelligence and pragmatism. Again, the president acts as a high-level manager who makes macro decisions. So the president has to synthesize lots of information and process it in order to make good decisions. Intelligence is required to process the large amounts of information that get dumped on presidents in our countries. I have read through the archives of the intelligence briefs given to Bush during the lead up to the Iraq War. Even that narrow slice of briefings contained huge amounts of information. So a president has to be able to process all of that information.

My own view is that ideological dogma gets in the way of information processing. It shuts down creativity and problem-solving ideas. So an intelligent ideologue could make the worst possible president. I would rather have someone who can be pragmatic in light of reality and evidence. If they propose something, and it doesn't work, then they learn from that and reformulate policy to be more effective. Ironically, Reagan best showed this kind of pragmatism on tax policy when he realized that the wealthy were not paying enough and adjusted the rates to increase taxes on high-income earners. Having the "right policies" is not a good qualification because we often don't know if those policies are actually effective. There are times when tax cuts are a good idea and there are times when they are a terrible idea. Recognizing that cutting taxes has not produced the economic growth and additional revenue, and increasing taxes to correct for that mistake, is the sign of a pragmatic (and smart) person.

Those are two of several characteristics related to being a qualified high-level manager. But most of the things that I think qualify someone to be a potentially good president all relate to what I view as the essential requirements of the office. A good candidate is someone who is familiar enough with policy, who understands the government (s)he is wanting to lead, and who can make macro decisions about complicated matters that are intelligent, creative, and rooted in reality and evidence (e.g., not ideology).

A few of the candidates who I think best demonstrate these characteristics - Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Kasich, Lincoln Chafee, George Pataki, and Jim Webb.

Some others are interesting to me but I don't know enough about them (e.g., Jim Gilmore) and they probably don't have a chance of winning. Bobby Jindall and Scott Walker do have gubernatorial experience, but both have shown signs of being ideologues. Martin O'Malley is interesting, but he left the state with some serious budgetary problems and I question how pragmatic he would be. Rick Perry also has experience as a governor, but he's just not smart and hews too close to ideological talking points. Bernie Sanders strikes me as a pretty hard ideologue and I therefore question his ability to actually govern as an executive.

Chris Christie meets a lot of my qualifications on paper but he's got a terrible temperament, which is important for diplomacy and foreign relations.

Ben Carson is obviously intellectually gifted, but he's the quintessential example of someone who lets ideology get in the way of intelligence. And he doesn't know s*** about government or how government works.

For me, I don't have to agree with someone's positions in order to recognize that they could make a very good president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, one of the problems that I have both parties - but particularly the GOP right now - is the demand for ideological purity. The GOP especially has taken good candidates like Romney and forced them to pretend to be ideologues. Romney the Governor of Massachusetts would have been a good president. Romney the 2012 candidate was not the same person. He was pretending to be something he wasn't.

The demand for ideological purity suppresses creative policy-making and problem-solving ideas. And it obviously is antithetical to pragmatic governing. When the parties become more ideologically extreme and demand their candidates adhere to all parts of the ideology, they are foreclosing on the possibility that some of those policies simply don't work. The starkest example of this would be comparing Brownback in KS to Kasich in OH. In response to the obvious failure of supply-side tax policies in Kansas, Brownback's answer was to have more of the failed policies. Kasich's response was to back off of the tax cuts and to focus on other solutions to promote economic growth and budget responsibility. And the difference is seen in the outcomes. Kansas is spiraling towards s***hole status while Ohio is in pretty good shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view the president as more of a high-level manager. Not someone who needs to know everything about all aspects of government, let alone all aspects of relevant policy. But someone who can identify people with expertise and delegate responsibility to the right people. So for me, the first thing is the ability and experience in acting as a high-level manager.

Business experience can provide that sort of managerial background, but it is not guaranteed. Carly Fiorina has CEO experience with one of the largest corporations in America, and she sucked at her job. She horribly mismanaged HP and was fired. So business experience is not automatically a qualification.

Military background can provide managerial experiences, as well. Generals certainly are required to delegate to experts and synthesize information, and in the military most of those decisions have life-and-death consequences. So I tend to give more weight to high-level military experience as a qualification than I do business experience. But even here there are limits.

I think perhaps the best experience a person can have to prepare them for governing the country is actually governing a state. Governors tend to make the most effective presidents - Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush (and yes, Bush was effective even if his policies sucked). I have often said that government is not a business and you cannot run government the same way. And government is not the same as the military, either. But governments in large states ARE very similar to national government, so for me that might be the best qualification for president is successful experience governing a large state.

The second qualification that I look for is a combination of intelligence and pragmatism. Again, the president acts as a high-level manager who makes macro decisions. So the president has to synthesize lots of information and process it in order to make good decisions. Intelligence is required to process the large amounts of information that get dumped on presidents in our countries. I have read through the archives of the intelligence briefs given to Bush during the lead up to the Iraq War. Even that narrow slice of briefings contained huge amounts of information. So a president has to be able to process all of that information.

My own view is that ideological dogma gets in the way of information processing. It shuts down creativity and problem-solving ideas. So an intelligent ideologue could make the worst possible president. I would rather have someone who can be pragmatic in light of reality and evidence. If they propose something, and it doesn't work, then they learn from that and reformulate policy to be more effective. Ironically, Reagan best showed this kind of pragmatism on tax policy when he realized that the wealthy were not paying enough and adjusted the rates to increase taxes on high-income earners. Having the "right policies" is not a good qualification because we often don't know if those policies are actually effective. There are times when tax cuts are a good idea and there are times when they are a terrible idea. Recognizing that cutting taxes has not produced the economic growth and additional revenue, and increasing taxes to correct for that mistake, is the sign of a pragmatic (and smart) person.

Those are two of several characteristics related to being a qualified high-level manager. But most of the things that I think qualify someone to be a potentially good president all relate to what I view as the essential requirements of the office. A good candidate is someone who is familiar enough with policy, who understands the government (s)he is wanting to lead, and who can make macro decisions about complicated matters that are intelligent, creative, and rooted in reality and evidence (e.g., not ideology).

A few of the candidates who I think best demonstrate these characteristics - Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Kasich, Lincoln Chafee, George Pataki, and Jim Webb.

Some others are interesting to me but I don't know enough about them (e.g., Jim Gilmore) and they probably don't have a chance of winning. Bobby Jindall and Scott Walker do have gubernatorial experience, but both have shown signs of being ideologues. Martin O'Malley is interesting, but he left the state with some serious budgetary problems and I question how pragmatic he would be. Rick Perry also has experience as a governor, but he's just not smart and hews too close to ideological talking points. Bernie Sanders strikes me as a pretty hard ideologue and I therefore question his ability to actually govern as an executive.

Chris Christie meets a lot of my qualifications on paper but he's got a terrible temperament, which is important for diplomacy and foreign relations.

Ben Carson is obviously intellectually gifted, but he's the quintessential example of someone who lets ideology get in the way of intelligence. And he doesn't know s*** about government or how government works.

For me, I don't have to agree with someone's positions in order to recognize that they could make a very good president.

Good read!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or perhaps the military could just be a much smaller part of the equation & not a primary factor in how we deal with the rest of the world. Lots of countries in this world are doing much better than we are, and largely because they're spending their money on their own people instead of focusing on blowing up someone else's people.

I didn't say a warmonger. But to be the commander of the nation's military you would think that would be a basic requirement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is being part of the "establishment" a bad thing? And what exactly is "the establishment"?

For the past two decades, our leadership has been responsible for a widening income disparity that's quickly approaching third world levels. Our government unapologetically spies on its citizen's emails and phone conversations. They have murdered innocent people by the thousands through unmanned drone strikes. And they have tortured human beings in secret prisons. I can't blame just one party for it all because I have a functioning brain that knows otherwise. So I just call them the "establishment" for lack of a better term.

So that's who they are and that's why being a part of it has not been a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the past two decades, our leadership has been responsible for a widening income disparity that's quickly approaching third world levels. Our government unapologetically spies on its citizen's emails and phone conversations. They have murdered innocent people by the thousands through unmanned drone strikes. And they have tortured human beings in secret prisons. I can't blame just one party for it all because I have a functioning brain that knows otherwise. So I just call them the "establishment" for lack of a better term.

So that's who they are and that's why being a part of it has not been a good thing.

tumblr_muujenGTpY1qmjvjqo1_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the past two decades, our leadership has been responsible for a widening income disparity that's quickly approaching third world levels. Our government unapologetically spies on its citizen's emails and phone conversations. They have murdered innocent people by the thousands through unmanned drone strikes. And they have tortured human beings in secret prisons. I can't blame just one party for it all because I have a functioning brain that knows otherwise. So I just call them the "establishment" for lack of a better term.

So that's who they are and that's why being a part of it has not been a good thing.

I agree in part, but the reality is that the two parties are not identical in terms of some policies. On foreign policy, yeah the spying and drone attacks are pretty similar. That's fair to say neither party is proposing real solutions to those problems. But on economic policy, it's not true that the two parties are identical.

A good place to start would be asking which policies would narrow the inequality that we've seen. What policies, specifically, do you think would address that problem? It's too simple to say that income inequality has increased under both parties' presidential administrations. There's a broader political reality, but first I'd like to hear your solutions to that problem.

tumblr_muujenGTpY1qmjvjqo1_500.gif

Same question regarding economic policies. Which policies do you think would reduce income inequality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is being trained as a soldier a basic requirement for being president of the United States, specifically?

How do you lead something you have never been a part of? That is his official title. Commander in chief. Do you want someone who has never been a part of your organization taking leadership of it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you lead something you have never been a part of? That is his official title. Commander in chief. Do you want someone who has never been a part of your organization taking leadership of it?

You think the president is drafting battle plans and making strategy about troop deployment? You think the president is taking charge of things like equipment choices for the troops?

Does the CEO of Kroger need to have worked as a cashier, a baker, a stock boy, a produce person, and a seafood/meat person to "lead" the corporation?

does it make sense to say that there is no single, foolproof economic policy? that your policies should reflect the existing variables and circumstances?

Sounds like a cop out to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a cop out to me.

it is a simple question. do you think there is an economic policy that covers all situations or not. it isn't a cop out, it is a simple yes or no question

just like your question is overly simplistic. do you mean a policy that would manage to accomplish the goal without hurting other aspects of our economy or do we have a policy that achieves the goal regardless of cost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...