Wednesday, November 17, 2004
It Seems to Me...
...that the very desire to hold public office makes you essentially unfit to hold that office. Politicians, in general, are self absorbed, obsessed with power and have the moral fiber of a sewer rat (with no disrespect meant towards sewer rats). No matter what office you hold, chances are you have greater ambitions and really don't give a shit about the people you're supposed to serve. It's all about getting to the next level - more money, more face time, more power.
Given that the President of the United States makes less than $100k per year and has essentially NO leisure time (well, GWB excluded), why would anyone in their right mind WANT to be president? Love him or hate him, but Clinton had the right idea - the ONLY valid reason to be president is to meet women.
I think it's time for a radical sea change in US politics, so here's what I propose: instead of electing the next US president (who will be nothing but a puppet controlled by big business and special interests anyway), why not hold a lottery to pick the president at random? Sure, we'd need some criteria to keep people like Geoffrey Dahmer, Courtney Love or Ralph Nader from getting elected, so let's start with these ground rules:
1) Education - must have at least a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university. I'll take BA or BS degrees; what we're looking for here is an indication that you've been exposed to education and (perhaps) multiple cultures.
2) Criminal history - no felony convictions, and no misdemeanor convictions in the last 10 years. Unlike Bill Clinton, many of us were actually smart enough to inhale in our younger years; no sense being punished for that years later.
3) Credit score - this is a tough one, since a lot of people will bitch that requiring a high credit score will eliminate too many candidates. Tough shit, says I - if you can't manage a checkbook, you damn sure can't run a country. I'm suggesting a minimum credit score of 700.
4) Age and nationality - I'm all for keeping it at 35, but why not open it up to anyone who's been a US citizen for 15 or more years. After all, aren't we a society of immigrants who've been kicked out of every civilized nation in the world?
5) Compensation - if ball players can make tens of millions of dollars, we can certainly afford to pay the president a few sheckles more. I say start with a base salary of one million, with bonus opportunities for balancing the budget, reducing the deficit, creating jobs, negotiating world peace, fixing social security and improving healthcare. It's a shitty job, so you might as well be amply compensated while you're doing it.
6) Psych evaluation - yeah, if police need to pass a basic screening, it's probably a good idea that the president should pass one, too. Of course this would have prevented LBJ, Nixon, GWB and a host of others from ever holding office...
7) Passport - ABSOLUTELY mandatory. If you've never traveled abroad and experienced other cultures, then you have no business as a world leader. I say the minimum criteria here is maintaining a current passport for at least 20 years.
I'm sure I'm missing some important screening criteria, but this seems like a good place to stop. Could we really be worse off electing a random, educated American than we are with the bozo currently in office? Personally, I don't think so.
Given that the President of the United States makes less than $100k per year and has essentially NO leisure time (well, GWB excluded), why would anyone in their right mind WANT to be president? Love him or hate him, but Clinton had the right idea - the ONLY valid reason to be president is to meet women.
I think it's time for a radical sea change in US politics, so here's what I propose: instead of electing the next US president (who will be nothing but a puppet controlled by big business and special interests anyway), why not hold a lottery to pick the president at random? Sure, we'd need some criteria to keep people like Geoffrey Dahmer, Courtney Love or Ralph Nader from getting elected, so let's start with these ground rules:
1) Education - must have at least a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university. I'll take BA or BS degrees; what we're looking for here is an indication that you've been exposed to education and (perhaps) multiple cultures.
2) Criminal history - no felony convictions, and no misdemeanor convictions in the last 10 years. Unlike Bill Clinton, many of us were actually smart enough to inhale in our younger years; no sense being punished for that years later.
3) Credit score - this is a tough one, since a lot of people will bitch that requiring a high credit score will eliminate too many candidates. Tough shit, says I - if you can't manage a checkbook, you damn sure can't run a country. I'm suggesting a minimum credit score of 700.
4) Age and nationality - I'm all for keeping it at 35, but why not open it up to anyone who's been a US citizen for 15 or more years. After all, aren't we a society of immigrants who've been kicked out of every civilized nation in the world?
5) Compensation - if ball players can make tens of millions of dollars, we can certainly afford to pay the president a few sheckles more. I say start with a base salary of one million, with bonus opportunities for balancing the budget, reducing the deficit, creating jobs, negotiating world peace, fixing social security and improving healthcare. It's a shitty job, so you might as well be amply compensated while you're doing it.
6) Psych evaluation - yeah, if police need to pass a basic screening, it's probably a good idea that the president should pass one, too. Of course this would have prevented LBJ, Nixon, GWB and a host of others from ever holding office...
7) Passport - ABSOLUTELY mandatory. If you've never traveled abroad and experienced other cultures, then you have no business as a world leader. I say the minimum criteria here is maintaining a current passport for at least 20 years.
I'm sure I'm missing some important screening criteria, but this seems like a good place to stop. Could we really be worse off electing a random, educated American than we are with the bozo currently in office? Personally, I don't think so.
// posted by John Patmos @ 5:50 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
The most honest people by far are scientists and engineers.
The least, by far, are lawyers and politicians and salesmen.
I think we should randomly choose a president from amongst top scientists and science fiction writers - the scientists who are already well established but have done most of their life's work though, we can't interrupt anything truly important for something like this.
The least, by far, are lawyers and politicians and salesmen.
I think we should randomly choose a president from amongst top scientists and science fiction writers - the scientists who are already well established but have done most of their life's work though, we can't interrupt anything truly important for something like this.
# posted by 
: 10:13 AM
: 10:13 AM
One problem - most research scientists are not exactly what I'd call "socially normal". I'd prefer a president who gets his weasel greased on a regular basis before taking office...
acid - Good point. Some of the most ineffective people I've ever met are those with MBAs from prestigious grad schools. They can analyze a situation to death, but they can never decide on a course of action.
A college degree doesn't indicate intelligence (look at our current commander-in-chief by way of example) but it generally indicates adaptability. I'm open to suggestion on other ways to determine eligible candidates.
Post a Comment
A college degree doesn't indicate intelligence (look at our current commander-in-chief by way of example) but it generally indicates adaptability. I'm open to suggestion on other ways to determine eligible candidates.
<< Home
