Quote:
Originally posted by tecoyah
All of the above, and then some.
Add to the list Geography, Foreign policy, and domestic/civil rights history to create a starting point.
In this way we may get someone bordering on the Genius mentality required to run a complicated and difficult system of government. This would also insure some level of functionality in the cabinet and advisory structure chosen by the elected president.
|
Who would make up the test? An "independent" commission? "Leading scholars"?
The idea is inherently anti-democratic and smells a lot like how they decide who can be a candidate in Iran. If we did something like this the people you would have to create an elite who would decide what a president should know. This would be their view, not the view of the majority of american people. Further, the tests would invariably reflect what slant they took on the controversial issues involved. So the people get to chose between a few candidates who mostly agreed with some powerful elite. Who has the real power in that situation? The powerful elite, not the people.
Behind most of these arguments for "better government" or "smarter government" I find lurking a lust for oligarchy, the idea that the people are stupid and some powerful elite need to take control before the people lead the country to ruin. In reality, the people aren't that stupid, and generally make pretty good choices. If you don't think so its probablly because you don't agree with them on an ideological basis, not because they are factually or inherently wrong.
Besides, you can't test for the qualities that matter. Jimmy Carter was a very smart man, and a horrible president. How do you test for the ability to get along with Congress, to schmooze forigen ambasadors, to delegate athourity properly? How do you test for leadership?