Inaugural Guest Essay: Reaction to Proposal for Accreditation of Candidates for Public Office

From time to time I will publish guest essays, both original pieces (such as a series on Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, to be published probably starting in early 2022) and responses to essays I previously published. This is such a response. By publishing it my intent is to give exposure to a thought-provoking response disagreeing respectfully with an essay I had written earlier, a copy of which follows the guest essay. Publication of the guest essay does not mean I agree with the author, nor am I endorsing her point of view. Nonetheless, it is a thoughtful and substantive commentary and I want to give it exposure. The author, Christine (Chris) Brant has authorized me to identify her and provide her email address (christine.a.tales@gmail.com). Her essay follows and the essay to which she is responding is shown following hers. In regards to Mark Riedy's article on Elected Officials possible National Education and Training programs, let me be the first to respectfully present an opposing opinion. I am one of those conservative minded thinkers that wants to deregulate, not add more regulation. The idea of more layers of bureaucratic control over who gets elected is an anathema to me, of the same ilk as nationally controlled elections. (Which is a whole other subject, and one I believe of utmost importance if we are to keep our republic.) I'm not particularly fond of polls. I find them to be easily manipulated, misleading and counterproductive, as contrary to truth as the mainstream media is today. But I did find it interesting that in the aforementioned poll the profession of Lawyer was not included! Would it have gotten the higher regard from society in general? Yet it is included as an example of a profession that requires prerequisite years of qualification supposedly giving society assurances. I have to ask, do higher education courses and "training" ever really take the place of personal responsibility? The issue, as I see it, is one of character. Can moral responsibility and character be found in the classroom or in a training program? Especially in today's "interesting" times where what is taught on campuses around the country has more to do with a political agenda (propaganda) than traditional education. I feel that we would be giving away our greatest privilege and highest responsibility by relinquishing our own requirement to do the research on candidates. If we want our political representatives to be more transparent, better at understanding the needs of the people they are representing, then WE THE PEOPLE need to hold them accountable. The above essay makes me wonder, who would be the one to decide that the class, the degree, the education is enough for the "right" amount of representation? Some of our greatest leaders were "self-educated," (Abraham Lincoln comes to mind). If I am to compare this kind of proposal to ...say... the martial arts. The further up the hierarchy of "training" the less desirable one is as a teacher of beginners. Although this isn't always the case, it is a problem that needs examination. It takes a special kind of leader to have the patience to hear all points of view and be able to find helpful solutions for "the many" while recognizing and adhering to the paramount rights of the individual. These qualities are not necessarily found in a classroom, they are developed by living and striving for better communities, communication and, yes, a thorough education of our history and of how to preserve our constitution. And since when does a formal education bypass "things like attractive personalities and families, friends in strategic places... " and other fortunate happenstances? These are important qualities of leadership, like it or not, and should not be vilified for the sake of an equitable outcome, or an "accredited" candidate. Lastly, the idea that our Republic should rely on an elite few to determine a candidate's qualifications today horrifies me. We are a democratic republic and it is precisely because each citizen has a voice that makes the United States of America exceptional. In the above essay the quote "candidates for office are not tested by (highly qualified peers)" makes me wonder, who is a qualified peer? What exactly does that mean? Are you one? Am I? And when you talk about "'hired' (elected) by committees of thousands of (self-interested) voters..." I am proud to say that I am one of those self-interested voters. I do believe we need to put civics back in the classrooms. It is so important to educate the citizenry about how our government works, how important each one's role is in picking qualified representatives, doing our homework on candidate's platforms and holding them accountable to that platform. It is a mistake to insulate ourselves from the duty of oversight by empowering elite committees to "train" what we want into our leadership. I have no faith that such a system would do what it was designed to do. I have the highest regard for the author of this piece and I am responding as I do to most political questions that are brought to my attention, with my heart full of gratitude for the debate and with a patriotic love of country. Best wishes and Happy Fourth of July to All! Christine Brant …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… The original essay follows. An Idea Whose Time May Never Come: Education & Training Requirements For Candidates for Election to Public Office I enjoy going back over the many insightful, often humorous responses to my essays. For example, in response to my essay on “A Trillion Here, A Trillion There…”a friend wrote, “We have more qualifications for people applying to McDonalds than for our national leaders.” That comment got me thinking, and I wrote what follows several weeks ago but just had not had time to publish it. However, in skimming USA Today this morning, on the front page there appeared a small table with the results of an “Ipsos poll” from May 4 – 5, which reminded me it was time to publish this piece. Here’s why. The survey question was “How many Americans say these professions are trustworthy?” Firefighters 80% Paramedics/EMS 76 Health Care Workers 75 Teachers 62 Police 49 Local Business Leaders 35 Local Government Workers 31 Business Leaders 25 National Elected Officials 19 I highlighted these survey results simply to suggest one of the reasons why National Elected Officials may not be viewed as trustworthy. That is, because among professions with enormous power over others, the group that might have the least amount of training and relevant education requirements for the positions they hold is comprised of nationally elected officials. Having invested five years of my life at the University of Michigan earning a PhD degree (after four years earning an undergraduate degree and two more earning an MBA), it made me think about job qualifications at the professional level. After their undergraduate degrees, for example, lawyers face three years of law school, bar exams, and a lifetime of continuing education programs. For doctors, after undergrad work they face med school, training in specialized fields, professional exams and opportunities for refreshing their skills and knowledge throughout their careers. These prerequisites for employment at the professional level are time-consuming, rigorous and expensive, but they go a long way to assuring society that those practicing in the field are well-qualified. Professors, lawyers and doctors are in “helping” professions. They have the power for good or for harm over those they serve, and those they serve are generally individuals or relatively small groups of people. In contrast, politicians holding elective office have no formal education, training or post-election continuing- education requirements for their positions even though they exercise enormous power—for better and for worse-- over huge groups of people. The budget authority can be in the millions (city level), billions (counties and states) or trillions of dollars (nation). At the national level in particular, they also write the laws of the land. One can argue there are unwritten and informal expectations of candidates for election, things like attractive personalities and families, friends in strategic places, fund-raising abilities, intelligence and a platform or statement of beliefs or principles. But these pale in comparison with legal, medical and university-based professional qualifications. Moreover, the legal, medical and university-based academic qualifications are established by small committees of highly qualified professionals with extensive relevant experience. And those same people generally play important roles in the recruiting and hiring of lawyers, doctors and PhD holders. In contrast, candidates for office are not tested by highly qualified peers, and are “hired” (elected) by committees of thousands of (self-interested) voters without the benefit of having been approved as candidates qualified to hold office. I also looked to see whether the U.S. Constitution had minimum requirements for election to the House and Senate. For the House, the member must be at least 25, a U.S. citizen for seven or more years, and live in the state of candidacy but not necessarily in the District to be represented. Senators must be at least 30, have nine years of U.S. citizenship and be an inhabitant of the state to be represented at the time of the election. My conclusions are twofold: First, I am glad my internist, ophthalmologist, dermatologist, cardiologist, oncologist and former professors at the University of Michigan hold their positions not because of winning elections or having friends in high places. To the contrary, what is reassuring are the rigorous education and experience requirements, professional exams, and other strict standards qualifying them for employment in their chosen professions. Second, my guess is that it would be easier to count back from one trillion to zero by threes than to get duly elected politicians voluntarily to create a statement of expectations and professional standards required of those seeking to become candidates for public office. Maybe I am delusional, but there ought to be a way to establish (academic, experiential, and moral, among others) standards for individuals to become candidates for public office. Not political standards, which are for the voters to decide, but other standards suggesting a candidate, if elected, is qualified to exercise the responsibilities of a powerful office responsibly and knowledgeably. Mark Riedy

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Part 2: Readers' Response to Essay: "Coping with Disappointments: Is Taking Them for Granted a Healthy Response?"

Essay: Noisy Restaurant Necessitates Bobblehead Doll Responses

Speaking in Public: Prepare Well