As I've mentioned elsewhere, I have lived in and/or visited many countries, and have experienced virtually every popular (or unpopular) style of government adopted in recent times. I was in Spain when Franco ran his Fascist dictatorship; in Greece under the military rule of The Four Colonels; in Singapore when Lee Kwan Yew ran the country with an iron fist; in the theocratic, nothing-is-illegal-if-you-bribe-enough-judges corruption of Indonesia; in the open-handed Socialism of The Netherlands and, of course, in the dreadfully flawed Democracy of the United States. Of them all, it seems the Socialist countries provide the most satisfying quality of life for the most people, while democracy trails far behind, despite the high-minded aspirations of its proponents. Government by the people and for the people is a great idea, but it doesn't work in a country as large and diverse as the United States, especially since there is no such thing as real equality anymore, if, indeed, there ever was. Spouting the "classless society" line is nothing more than an exercise in denial; Americans are as divided into classes as are the people of India, whether we want to admit it or not.
The only difference is that we're partitioned along financial lines, rather than familial ones. And, as the schism between the wealthy and the middle and low income groups becomes greater, those into whose hands we put the reins of government are more and more representative of the moneyed class and less and less in touch with the needs and desires of those they are elected to serve.
Inasmuch as this state of affairs becomes more obvious with every election, as virtually every public office is won by a wealthy, but mentally mediocre, candidate, I think it's time to scrap the entire electoral system and replace it with the following procedure:
Rather than limiting our choices to those with enough money and influence to buy their way into office, we should select our public officials the same way we hire other public servants: by qualifying exam. We certainly know enough about the requirements of political offices to devise a test for each one, from town councilman to president of the country.
These exams would be promotional, so that every candidate would have previous experience in government, and would be open to anyone who qualifies. Instead of joining parties, we would choose individuals; instead of time and money- wasting political conventions, we would have "test week", during which aspirants would sit for exams.
The tests themselves would be devised by experts in every pertinent field: intelligence, ethics, emotional stability, physical health, and comprehensive knowledge of all aspects of the desired office. Please do not confuse these exams with the "civil service" type of test taken, and passed, by "Patty" and "Selma" at the DMV, leading to lifetime tenure. All offices would carry term limits, and therefore could not become permanent careers. And the salaries would be commensurate with the national average of similar jobs in the private sector.
Once the exams are scored, the top three or four contenders for each office would be given the opportunity to present their positions on issues and political philosophy, through a series of televised and online debates. Air time would be donated by the broadcast networks, or, in the case of local elections, individual stations. A small advance in technology would allow the public to vote from their homes, following the debates, in a slightly more sophisticated version of "American Idol".
I truly believe the Founders would approve of this plan. I think they did believe in equal opportunity, and in the elimination of a "ruling class". Unfortunately, advances in science and technology have allowed gross distortion of their excellent intentions, as has the enormous expansion of the little nation they conceived.
For example, when they provided for an arms-bearing militia to protect its citizens, surely they never meant for everyone with an opposable thumb to own a gun. Did it ever occur to Tom and Ben that their high-minded guarantee of free speech would lead to an unending battle over pornography? When they assured us of the right to assemble, could they ever have imagined the miraculous ability we have to exchange ideas and opinions through cyberspace? What would they say if they could see how, despite their strict prohibition of collaboration between church and state, our current government is fast becoming a theocracy, run by religious fanatics bent on converting the nation to their own skewed belief system?
I'm equally certain that the Founders never meant for political office to be sold to the richest candidate, bought and paid for by special interests with an axe to grind and pockets to line. Because they were the best minds of their time, they doubtless expected the tradition of intelligent government to continue.
Instead, the system has deteriorated into a series of battles between ambitious men of wealth and privilege, leading to unqualified, venal, power-seeking individuals spending our money to enrich themselves, with little or no thought of the consequences to the very people they are elected to serve.
Personally, I'd be much less uneasy if I knew our president had an IQ that was slightly higher than his shoe size. Knowing that my taxes are buying weapons for a war staged for the sole purpose of the aggrandizement of a feeble-minded president does not assist in my pursuit of happiness.
How about you? Wouldn't you like to think that if your brilliant child gets one of the highest scores on the Test for President, she could become the leader of the free world, even without a million dollars? Wouldn't you feel safer and more content with those who make the rules and spend your money, if you knew they were proven to be intellectually, psychologically and physically qualified to do so? Wouldn't you be less cynical about our leaders if you knew they were there because they sincerely wanted to do a good job, and not just to stuff their Swiss bank accounts by doing favors for their billionaire buddies?
The bottom line is simply that this plan would ensure that our leaders are selected by qualification, not privilege. With forward-thinking, enlightened leaders, we could, for example, rest assured that life-enhancing endeavors were better funded than instruments of destruction. We'd know that scientific research was at least as important as weapons development.
Most importantly, we could sleep peacefully, knowing that all government officials, at every level, were trained, educated, intelligent people of good character, who had our best interests at heart.
After all, we put our lives into the hands of firefighters and police officers because we know they are fully trained to do their jobs. Why expect any less of those who hold political office and make the laws that affect every aspect of our daily lives?


Comments: 42
1) He did not get elected. He stole the office with the help of Brother Jeb and his corrupt ballot manipulations.
2) What, exactly, has he done to further the interests of the people he represents? Start a fruitless, expensive, unwinnable war based on a lie? Cause prices to rise above the ability of the average citizen to pay? Screw up Social Security? Try to force a national religion down our throats? Or just give every standup comic a limitless source of jokes?
3) Remind me.. what was that platform again?
Problems, of course, are:
1.) Who is to devise these tests?
2.) Who is to administer and score them?
A few other technical questions would probably need to be answered as well.
And, of course, the ultimate question: How is this system going to be implemented to replace our current one, when those who should lead the way are the same ones benefitting from the status quo?
Answer 1) Specialists in the fields of ethics, intelligence, and the specific requirements of each office would input this information and let a computer formulate the exams.
2) Tests would be administered like any other, supervised by an authorized proctor, graded by the same experts who wrote the questions.
3) Hopefully, by people like us, who could start at a village level, selecting town councilmen and other office holders by exam rather than ballot. The first small town to do this would make a major historical impact and, with the right PR campaign, could be the seed from which the change would grow. At least, that's how I see it happening. I'd love to hear some other ideas on the subject.
thanks for the perspective. I have not experienced life outside the US, but I have noticed that our myths regarding the inherent superiority of democracy are not borne out in measureable reality. The US doesn't have the longest lifespan, lowest neo-natal death-rate, highest literacy rate. We do have the highest incarceration rate.
Worse, we haven't made improving on any of these a national priority. I agree, we need to make competency part of the criteria for selecting a President. When the Prez isn't competent, we should be able to remove that person from office on that basis alone.
Great article, I like your idea, but the power structure in the US is really based on: One Dollar One Vote.
The One Person One Vote slogan is only a propaganda tool to fool all the people all the time!
By the way, with most of the E-voting machines permanently rigged by Rove to always declare Republicans as the winners, Dubya has made voting process completely irrelevant and a total farce!
Now we know why W is always smirking, he knows he has the voting system rigged for good!
Still another reason to start from scratch. The present system is so flawed in every area, it has become a total travesty of the democratic process as envisioned by the founders. We soooo need to dismantle it. Down with costly campaigning! Up with true testing!
I'll be honest about the testing system too... it reminds alot of when we took that test for the counselors in school to see what job we are best suited, well that and SAT. Both of which you can practice and beat.
In any event, barring any great changes such as you have suggested, we need to do away with the Electoral College, and districts that can be gerrymandered to get a desired voting result.
If we use electonic voting machines, Diebold, they should be inspected for being rigged, by people who can be trusted, whoever that might be. And we should get a hard copy of how we voted.
Ruth.. I totally agree that voters should be qualified to cast a ballot. Immigrants who desire citizenship must pass civics and history tests to become registered voters; native-born Americans should be required to do no less. As for that dinosaur, the Electoral College, it's beyond me why it's still in place. Of course, it, like every other part of the mess we call democratic government, is buried in Catch 22.. the only people who can change it are the last people in the world who would want to. Meaning it's going to take a second American Revolution, against another King George, to fix it. Anyone got a fife and drum?
But yet, there may be a major upheaval soon that could usher in such a change after I next big worldwide military extravaganza... I really think it will begin before the next pres election ... but it will not end with a winner, there will be none of those next time (as if there ever really was)...
There needs to be a major fundamental change in peoples thinking before any of this happens IMHO.
Like from dualistic polarization into far rights and far lefts with no value in the center. What we now have is (+/-).
What we need is a sense of spiritual commonality designated as = standing for cooperation and compassion (even the spirit of God as love) in between the (+) and (-) that now cannot get along because each thinks they are better than the other ... put that all together and you have a trinity of (+=-)...read book
It would not be my job to formulate the questions; I would leave that to recognized experts in the fields of education, ethics, intelligence, civics, law, national and international questions and the specifics of each office. I'd go to the universities for input from the best minds in the country, throw it all into a computer and let artificial (unbiased) intelligence create the exams.
Jerry...
I was with you completely until I hit the word "God" in your comment. Manmade deities have no place in government, left, right or center. In my opinion, "faith" is nothing more than self-imposed ignorance, and that's the last thing any country needs in its leadership.
Faith is exactly what drives us. Wether tested in or ignorantly voted in, you must have faith in the leadership of this world. This "self-imposed ignorance" is often enough what keeps the masses from tearing each other apart. Without it you might as well apply the "Good Will Hunting" Principle to everything in life...
What do you want in yours?
Even Atheists could accept this God, made up of all gods, made up of all of the people, realized or not, and thus made up of all of creation including the cosmic.
You can cut and paste a number of desires listed above in you response here because they are the wants and expectations everyone has for their leader.
What I really want is a leader that will answer a letter should I write one and take the time to recognize the persons he leads, I want a leader that will lift the head of the beaten and give them hope again.
If I interpret you correctly, I think you and I are close in understanding of the Cosmic Oneness. I use other words to describe it (Universal Mind, Cosmic Consciousness, Infinite Spirit, to name a few) but I think I believe much the same as you do... that everything, all matter and energy in the universe, is a single entity. I do not believe that this entity is separate and apart from us, rather than we are all part of it, every atom in the Universe bound together in constant interaction. I prefer not to use the term "god" simply because this term has come to connote a Being (usually anthropomorphic) who creates, controls, rewards and punishes the insignificant human species on this little planet, a notion that, to me, has always smacked of monumental arrogance on the part of mankind. And that's MY truth.
Christopher...
For the most part, I'm in agreement with your portrait of a good leader, except I don't think (s)he needs to have been a militarized person to understand the horrors of war. All (s)he would need to do is spend a week or two in a battle zone with no more protection than the troops have and look around. He'd get the picture. As for the rest of your description, I have no argument. I'm sorry if my response sounded glib or trite... I was trying to be concise rather than prolix. I could certainly elaborate on all my adjectives with examples and analogies but I don't have the patience to write that much, as I'm sure you don't have the patience to read it.
Let's just agree that we both want a good guy (or woman) to lead us wisely and with no agenda save that which is best for us and, hopefully, all of humanity. (But us first).
As for the religious aspect, please see above.
The system has a number of flaws in it. The most serious, and the least discussed, it the vacated citizenry. The citizens of our country have vacated their responibilities as citizens.
Of those eligible to vote, less than half do so. Of those that vote, a significant percentage vote stricly along ideological lines. Somewhere I have the number and the source of that info but I can't put my hands on it at the moment so I won't give a specific number.
Of those that vote, the act of voting is the extent of their participation in their government. Shortly after the election they can not name their congressmen or senators. There is no further contact with them, no effort made to stay informed on legislation being considered, no effort to contact their representatives regarding that legislation.
There is no participation in the political process other than voting. Voting is just the final act of the process.
I believe the founding fathers would have a problem with your process. I've read the writings of most of them. They desired a system where the individual participated in the process. At that time, they still remembered that American was founded for the individual. Something we have forgotten in this day and time.
In your system, George W. Bush would probably easily qualify. Do not make the mistake of thinking he is stupid or dumb. He is dumb like a fox. But you - and many others - would be unhappy with that. Why? Because your proposal does not take into account ideology of the candidates.
Let's take a couple of significant issues.
First, Israel. Would the winner of your process want to protect Israel at all cost, or would the candidate take an isolationist view?
Second, the economy. Would the candidate favor globalization or more traditional models? Would his policies lead to run away inflation or take the country into a depression?
Or is it that you mean by "character" those candidate who would agree with your views on all issues?
Then there is the issue of intellectual elitism. Your system would seem to go down the road towards that. I have known many people with minimal amounts of education who would make great leaders of this country. They have 2 important traits that your system doesn't account for - common sense and the desire to surround themselves with good people representing a diversity of viewpoints - and to listen to those people.
I believe if your system were to be implemented, sooner or later we would have revolution. It would probably be sooner. It doesn't allow for the people to select leaders with the ideology they want.
Yes, we have undo influence by monied interests in all level of our politics. Your proposed system would not eliminate that, it might even encourage it. The best defense against such undue influence is a citizenry that participates. In the vacumn left by the lack of participation, the monied interests will move in and fill the void.
How many eligible voters bother to visit such a Pork Busters or TPMuckrakers which has much about governement waste? Or one sites of the House or the Senate to know which legislation being proposed? Or one of sites which shows exactly how each senator or congressmen voted on legislation?
The citizens are very good about complaining about this and that - and they should be. But complaining without participating has no value or merit.
I applaud your creativity and originality in what you have proposed. Sadly, the Amercian citizenry have precisely the type of government and leadership they want and deserve.
As for your statement that 'Bush is dumb like a fox', and that he would be able to pass the exam I envision... surely, you jest! Have you HEARD this slackjaw try to speak without a teleprompter? By what stretch of imagination do you think he would have been on any ballot if he were YOUR son? Or mine?
"Yes, we have undo influence by monied interests in all level of our politics. Your proposed system would not eliminate that, it might even encourage it". How would that come about? Since my plan calls for salaries equal to those of similar jobs in the private sector and term limits on all elected offices, how would monied interests be able to exert influence? Especially since I think lobbying should be illegal under any circumstances. If I have overlooked something here, please elucidate.
I appreciate your attempt to find flaws in the plan...I know I have not taken every contingency under consideration, and welcome the opportunity to fill holes in my scenario.
I would suggest that that the mess we're in is due to apathetic citizenry.
The Congress has mindlessly rubber stamped much of the actions of President Bush. If each Senator and Congressman had received a few hundred thousand letters saying no to the war in Iraq, instead of a few dozen, we would not be in Iraq.
No, Ruth, I didn't overlook that part. We essentially have such a process available to us right now, if we choose to use it. Through the primary process and election process the citizens are given ample opportunity to discover much about their potential candidates.
Granted, one can not depend upon the "national media". There are plenty alternative sources available for peoople who are really interested in knowing the candidates.
The influence of monied interests has little to do with with salaries of our elected officials. First of all, there will always be those that want more, no matter how much they get - we've seen this not only with some members of our government but in the private sector as well. Second of all, monied interests can exert influence by the effect they have on others (Senator Ted Steven's son receiving huge consulting fees from companies benefitting from his fathers actions).
Yes, I have heard Bush speak publicly on many occassions. I've also heard him speak privately. Do not confuse a few verbal gaffs with his intelligence - or his intent.
Lobbyists are a problem but one that will not, and should not go away. There are first amendment rights that should not be tampered with. However, just as candidates must have equal time in our media, we can work with a system to limit that exposure and assure equal exposure for other interests, to have transparency in those relationships and discussions.
In my opinion, PACs are much more of a problem than lobbyists. For instance, the influence of the Swift Boat group in the last election. Unfortunately, our citizenry has a tendency to believe whatever they read in print or hear on the news that reinforces their basic viewpoint. They no longer read for understanding and perception. These citizens are even more susceptible in this day of "spin".
At the present time, Senators Tom Coburn and Barak Obama have proposed legislation to create a single website with access to information on nearly all recipients of federal funding. The legislation originally had a "secret hold" placed on it by Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia - two of the worst offenders with pork barrel spending. Now another senator has placed a "secret hold" on the legislation.
This legislation will go a long way towards addressing some of the issues you are concerned about. You can read more about this at:
http://porkbusters.org/secrethold.php
I would urge you to stay abreast of this legislation and do all that you can, including making others aware of it, to help get it passed. It was citizen involvement that forced the identity of the persons who placed the first secret hold on the legislation. They are now working to get the latest hold removed.
It is so refreshing to see someone who doesn't just b*tch a fit about something but comes out with some solutions that are obviously well though out and constructive.
Shantiho,
Father Wolf
Unfortunately, money is power. And power protects itself. Bummer. Just think of the need to find alternative sources of fuel. All sorts of ideas have been suggested over the years, but the oil companies manage to squash every one of them.
Ruth, this is a well-written and beautifully thought out article. Have you considered sending it to a magazine, or the New York Times?
Oh, and I'm way late to this argument, but I have to say this: RELIGION DOES NOT BELONG IN GOVERNMENT. PERIOD.
And who do you think will be designing this test? Probably the big money multinationals and government think tanks, like the Cato Institute; both of whom can't wait to tear down our borders, rape us of our wealth and sovereignty, and make us all equal members of the oppressed and impoverished global community.
Also, more diversity = a more corrupt democracy. One day multiculturism combined with women's liberation will make an outright dictatorship a practical necessity just to keep America from imploding, in the same way that the Roman Empire declined from being a Republic to most of the power going to the Emperors. It's a done deal. Remember, you heard it here first.
It'd be well nigh impossible to pull this off, of course, though perhaps a stage at a time might make it possible over time . . . but I love the concept.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I don't think it's impossible but expect it would be more likely put into place because of revolt than over time. Currently, the US is lost in self-admiration and the self-imposed lathargy.
Comment to Comments: On the subject of testing individuals before they will be allowed to vote. That has been done in this country before with very negative effects. Ruth you may see G-D as the opiate of the masses, that is your opinion (as I gather it) and as an American you have the right to your opinion. I however disagree for me G-D is the choice of ethics and morals, He tells us to care for others, to use our intellect and think, to do many of the things you say you would want in a president. You say I do not believe that this entity is separate and apart from us, rather than we are all part of it, every atom in the Universe bound together in constant interaction. You have just given a description in part of G-D. Father Wolf, I just did an article with statistics on voters. According to the U.S. Census Bureau there were 201,073M American citizens in November 2006. Of those 67.6% were registered to vote only 47.8% actually did.
While I applaud your idea I don't think it would work. In order to explain myself let me tell you a small story. I had a friend much younger than I am who told me once there should be a panel or commission to decide who can have children so only the right people would have children. In her opinion that would cut down on child abuse. I asked her who were the people who would decide who the right people were. About the same time there was a mentally-challenged (or non-PC retarded) married couple that had a child in the Baltimore-Washington Corridor. Many people were in favour of taking the child away from them even though social workers said they were doing a very good job of bringing the child up. Previously there was a state where all mentally-challenged people were (in their words) altered so they could not have children. That state was Virginia. While I agree that the Electoral College is a joke and the whole idea of it needs to be dismantled. And I agree yes we need reforms, I wonder who the right people are in your theory. There is still the potential for Big Brother there.
I have not been as lucky as you to experience such a wide range of governments and environments, but I have travelled a lot for pleasure and have been to many third world areas as well as socialist and communist countries [yes, I am old enough to have spent time behind the iron curtain before it was destroyed], and I could not agree with you more about the best form of government.
That being said, I believe that socialism is at its best in a more homogeneous society, such as Denmark. When you get larger and more diverse, human beings' natural tendency is to distinguish worth by tribe/race/ethnicity/religious belief more so than by national ties. I have said that I believe the US is too big and diverse at this point to actually govern itself well, and that it should separate into essentially red and blue countries. I would rejoice in living in the country of New England where we could be free of the southern bigotry and religious fundamentalism that mucks up the wheels of government and denies dignity to the individual [IMO]. To have an above-average educated populace that understands the fact that taking care of society as a whole makes society much better in the long run.
Thanks again for this - it is comforting to see someone else have the same, if not extremely similar, views. It's always comforting to know we are not insane....or at least not the only insane ones.