Qualified to be President

[Kishkumen]

Rather than wander off on yet another tangent on another thread, I am going to post some of the things I think qualify someone to be president beyond the Constitutional requirements. Obviously this is an opportunity for the rest of us to do the same, but I will not necessarily respond to everyone’s post on the topic.

Qualifications:

Track record of experience in office: governors have decent executive experience, but they may not have a mastery of federal issues. For this reason, I prefer a track record in federal office. That track record should evince not only positive accomplishments but also statesmanship. Past vice-presidents and presidents have a leg up here, but bad performance in either role is not qualifying.

Appropriate knowledge and understanding: Knowledge of history, the Constitution, our system of government in action, and foreign affairs. Awareness of current problems and a mastery of feasible possible solutions. An understanding of what is possible given the constraints of the presidential office and the array of political, social, and economic factors at play when elected. Basic understanding of economics and feasible solutions to current economic problems. A grasp of the scientific method and appreciation of the value of expertise in the various disciplines of science, with confidence that such knowledge can improve our collective lot and chances of long term survival.

Respect for the rule of law: The rule of law not men has an ancient pedigree in the West. A future president should have demonstrated basic lawfulness and good citizenship. Their life should not be a trail of lawsuits, settlements, criminal charges, criminal convictions, or losses in civil actions. Their circle of close associates and underlings should also not show similar evidence of a disregard for the law. They should demonstrate an understanding of and live in consonance with the principle of equality before the law, not using wealth or influence to evade legal responsibility.

Sound moral character and psychological stability: the president should have lived a life of basic moral probity, including faithfulness to spouses, family, and friends. They should honor their word, keep their sacred oaths, and fulfill their responsibilities to others. They should show compassion to the weak and vulnerable, while maintaining appropriate humility and indulging only measured or moderated ambition. They should strive to lead morally exemplary lives, even when they know they will fall short, and recognize that their behavior impacts the moral environment of the nation. Excessive selfishness, solipsism, erratic behavior, quickness to anger, and vindictiveness are undesirable traits.

Realism about the human lot and appreciation of the importance of community: presidents who are unrealistic in their expectations of others or themselves, who demand perfection, seek utopian solutions in the short term, or have an unrealistic sense of their own importance should be avoided. Presidents should lead from the position that persuasion, coalition, and compromise are indispensable aspects of sound government.

I could go on, but this is a good starting place for me. Obviously, few candidates would be perfectly qualified according to my standard, but the further they stray from my set of qualifications, the more disqualified I will judge them to be. You can probably guess how qualified I think both Trump and Kennedy are(n’t) based on my list.

[drumdude]

Respect for the rule of law: The rule of law not men has an ancient pedigree in the West. A future president should have demonstrated basic lawfulness and good citizenship. Their life should not be a trail of lawsuits, settlements, criminal charges, criminal convictions, or losses in civil actions. Their circle of close associates and underlings should also not show similar evidence of a disregard for the law. They should demonstrate an understanding of and live in consonance with the principle of equality before the law, not using wealth or influence to evade legal responsibility.

This may have been a huge mistake for the framers. Usually they planned for citizens to act in their own selfish interest, and designed the government with that in mind. Any government that is predicated on citizens only acting altruistically is bound to fail.

But they should have extended that explicitly to the President. It's much too precarious to hope that no President ever comes along to make themselves King. There must be checks and balances sufficient to guard against anyone who would try. Unfortunately the history of the American presidency is a straight unbroken line of increasing power and decreasing checks. Trump and Biden have inherited more power than any President before them, and their successors will each be more powerful than the last.

[Kishkumen]

This may have been a huge mistake for the framers. Usually they planned for citizens to act in their own selfish interest, and designed the government with that in mind. Any government that is predicated on citizens only acting altruistically is bound to fail.

Are you trying to tell me that you think that rational self-interest and the rule of law are fundamentally incompatible?

But they should have extended that explicitly to the President. It's much too precarious to hope that no President ever comes along to make themselves King. There must be checks and balances sufficient to guard against anyone who would try. Unfortunately the history of the American presidency is a straight unbroken line of increasing power and decreasing checks. Trump and Biden have inherited more power than any President before them, and their successors will each be more powerful than the last.

It certainly doesn’t help to have a Supreme Court that is only too happy to hand them even more power and fewer checks on it.

[yellowstone123]

delete.

[Kishkumen]

Mine would be the following:

1) the person is 35 years of age;

2) the person is a natural born citizen;

3) that the person has lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-White House ... 14%20years.

Gee, that’s so illuminating. Thanks for sharing.

[drumdude]

This may have been a huge mistake for the framers. Usually they planned for citizens to act in their own selfish interest, and designed the government with that in mind. Any government that is predicated on citizens only acting altruistically is bound to fail.

Are you trying to tell me that you think that rational self-interest and the rule of law are fundamentally incompatible?

But they should have extended that explicitly to the President. It's much too precarious to hope that no President ever comes along to make themselves King. There must be checks and balances sufficient to guard against anyone who would try. Unfortunately the history of the American presidency is a straight unbroken line of increasing power and decreasing checks. Trump and Biden have inherited more power than any President before them, and their successors will each be more powerful than the last.

It certainly doesn’t help to have a Supreme Court that is only too happy to hand them even more power and fewer checks on it.

I’m saying that it’s human nature to be selfish, and put the needs of oneself, or one’s family, or one’s tribe, above one’s society. You put laws in place assuming that people will be sinners, not that they’ll be saints.

We have to assume that sometimes presidents will be sinners and plan accordingly. And yes the Supreme Court judgements have let us down massively on that, unfortunately.

I would be surprised if we ever have a president who puts more limitations on the power of the presidency. Just like Congress will never pass themselves a pay cut.

[Res Ipsa]

Are you trying to tell me that you think that rational self-interest and the rule of law are fundamentally incompatible?



It certainly doesn’t help to have a Supreme Court that is only too happy to hand them even more power and fewer checks on it.

I’m saying that it’s human nature to be selfish, and put the needs of oneself, or one’s family, or one’s tribe, above one’s society. You put laws in place assuming that people will be sinners, not that they’ll be saints.

We have to assume that sometimes presidents will be sinners and plan accordingly. And yes the Supreme Court judgements have let us down massively on that, unfortunately.

I would be surprised if we ever have a president who puts more limitations on the power of the presidency. Just like Congress will never pass themselves a pay cut.

Interesting question. I think the framers believed in civic virtue along with self interest. I think that is reflected in the original method of selecting members of the Senate and the longer term of office. The members of the Senate would be more likely to consider broader interests, acting as a check on the rabble directly elected every two years.

What I don’t think the framers provided in the structure of the government was a check on factionalism. If each Congress critter voted in the best interest of the citizens they represent, we the country would be better off. Instead, today’s representatives vote in the best interest of their team, neglecting the interests of many of the citizens they are supposed to represent. I think that’s what Washington warned us about. He knew that there was nothing in the Constitution to check that.

Here is an example of what I’m thinking of. https://www.usconstitution.net/civic-vi ... -republic/

[drumdude]

I’m saying that it’s human nature to be selfish, and put the needs of oneself, or one’s family, or one’s tribe, above one’s society. You put laws in place assuming that people will be sinners, not that they’ll be saints.

We have to assume that sometimes presidents will be sinners and plan accordingly. And yes the Supreme Court judgements have let us down massively on that, unfortunately.

I would be surprised if we ever have a president who puts more limitations on the power of the presidency. Just like Congress will never pass themselves a pay cut.

Interesting question. I think the framers believed in civic virtue along with self interest. I think that is reflected in the original method of selecting members of the Senate and the longer term of office. The members of the Senate would be more likely to consider broader interests, acting as a check on the rabble directly elected every two years.

What I don’t think the framers provided in the structure of the government was a check on factionalism. If each Congress critter voted in the best interest of the citizens they represent, we the country would be better off. Instead, today’s representatives vote in the best interest of their team, neglecting the interests of many of the citizens they are supposed to represent. I think that’s what Washington warned us about. He knew that there was nothing in the Constitution to check that.

Here is an example of what I’m thinking of. https://www.usconstitution.net/civic-vi ... -republic/

Great point. Abortion comes immediately to mind. Many of the representatives want to advance restrictions that they know the majority of their constituents do not want.

[Kishkumen]

Interesting question. I think the framers believed in civic virtue along with self interest. I think that is reflected in the original method of selecting members of the Senate and the longer term of office. The members of the Senate would be more likely to consider broader interests, acting as a check on the rabble directly elected every two years.

What I don’t think the framers provided in the structure of the government was a check on factionalism. If each Congress critter voted in the best interest of the citizens they represent, we the country would be better off. Instead, today’s representatives vote in the best interest of their team, neglecting the interests of many of the citizens they are supposed to represent. I think that’s what Washington warned us about. He knew that there was nothing in the Constitution to check that.

Here is an example of what I’m thinking of. https://www.usconstitution.net/civic-vi ... -republic/

Wonderful post. I agree.

[Res Ipsa]

Interesting question. I think the framers believed in civic virtue along with self interest. I think that is reflected in the original method of selecting members of the Senate and the longer term of office. The members of the Senate would be more likely to consider broader interests, acting as a check on the rabble directly elected every two years.

What I don’t think the framers provided in the structure of the government was a check on factionalism. If each Congress critter voted in the best interest of the citizens they represent, we the country would be better off. Instead, today’s representatives vote in the best interest of their team, neglecting the interests of many of the citizens they are supposed to represent. I think that’s what Washington warned us about. He knew that there was nothing in the Constitution to check that.

Here is an example of what I’m thinking of. https://www.usconstitution.net/civic-vi ... -republic/

Wonderful post. I agree.

I read an article a while back that I may try to track down. It was about education, but I think it has broader application. The gist was that "consumerism" has had a detrimental impact on our educational system. That's what we've done with government in general, I think. Our view of government has been reduced to a trip to Walmart. We pay our taxes in exchange for goods and services. Only, unlike Walmart, we require government to give us what we demand or we attack it.

What is completely lost is the concept of what it means to be a citizen. Citizenship is a kind of compact between citizen and government that involves more than just paying money. Maybe that's how civic virtue fits in. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the framers assumed the existence of obligations that we no longer acknowledge.