As we endure yet another presidential campaign it is hard to ignore how the people’s branch of government is failing us. Social programs, once thought to be enduring, are insufficient for current need and unsustainable for future demand. The electorate has all but abandoned the political process due to the lack of qualified candidates. We have, from coast to coast, a significant shortage of ideas and an overabundance of stagnant waste. In other words, a cesspool from which to choose our representatives.
This may seem like a harsh assessment. Some might even feel the need to rip it to shreds. However, I have given a great deal of thought to the state of public service lately, and it seems to me that self-service is a more accurate picture of our local, state, and federal government. It is with these thoughts in mind that I have come up with a few requirements of candidates seeking public office.
Candidates unable to speak publicly without using divisive language, including but not limited to sexist, homophobic, racist remarks and fear mongering ignorance, need not apply. In addition, voters deserve to know the following about potential public officials:
- Criminal Record
- Scholarly Writings
- Team Building Experience
- Math Skills (because someone has to do the math)
Other qualifications for a role in government should be a person’s willingness and ability to tell the truth, whether or not under oath, and a general understanding of human anatomy, in case a question about how babies are made comes up in the course of, you know, a televised interview. These are only a few ideas. There are certainly others worthy of consideration. Please share yours if you feel so inclined.
Honie Briggs 
Yes. How about “candidate should talk about specific ideas of how to achieve their objectives and never use/depend on character assasination/attacks about their opponent(s)” So tired of people just insulting/ridiculing/ cutting down others, laughing about it, and thinking that all counts as a campaign speech.
Team building is fine to a point, but sometimes it has to be “lead, follow, or get out of the way.” Group decisions are sometime not wise or appropriate – but getting others to work with you and when everyone understands the necessity compromise for the good of the country – that is always admirable and to be encouraged. (and compromise does not mean “my way or you are horrid”…back to character assasinations and lack of ability to work together…)
Amen, sister!
Great start! I would think these should be fundamental. I would love to see candidates hooked up to lie detectors during debates.
lmao – I love your checklist. Good luck. As for me, I think I’m heading towards anarchy. Instead of individuals or groups putting their hands up for office, how about we borrow an idea or two from jury duty. No one wants to do it, right? So let’s select our politicians at random. With luck, at least 80% won’t want to be there and the other 20% will get howled down. And before I get howled down myself, would random people off the street really be that much worse than the egomaniacs currently wielding power all over the free world?
I would say, ‘Let’s try that random street people idea’ and then I remember: I walk the streets randomly. Pass!
-grin- You seem like a pretty cluey random to me! You’re in. 😀
How can someone lead the military if they have never served? Most of our presidents (and many in Congress) in former days understood the sacrifice and dedication of a soldier.
When but a child I walked through the White House in awe… now old I see the White house disrespected at every turn, and of those that want to occupy it non worthy of it!