No Brains, No Public Office
© 2009 John P Hewitt
© 2009 John P Hewitt
Congressman Bill Posey’s (R, Fla) proposal to require Presidential candidates to submit proof of citizenship seems to be gaining steam now that eleven of his fellow House members have signed on as co-birthers. It’s a promising bill, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough.
Congressman Bill Posey’s (R, Fla) proposal to require Presidential candidates to submit proof of citizenship seems to be gaining steam now that eleven of his fellow House members have signed on as co-birthers. It’s a promising bill, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough.
As Rep. Posey points out, we require documentation for all kinds of things in this country. Apply for a passport, a driver’s license, or a credit card and you have to prove who you are. If you want to be appointed a Supreme Court justice you go through a rigorous intellectual, moral, financial, and political strip search. Even if you want to be a Block Captain in the Neighborhood Watch program the Sheriff does a background check.
As Rep. Posey points out, we require documentation for all kinds of things in this country. Apply for a passport, a driver’s license, or a credit card and you have to prove who you are. If you want to be appointed a Supreme Court justice you go through a rigorous intellectual, moral, financial, and political strip search. Even if you want to be a Block Captain in the Neighborhood Watch program the Sheriff does a background check.
So what’s the problem with Posey’s bill? For starters, it doesn’t include candidates for the United States Senate or House of Representatives. You don’t have to be native born to serve in Congress, but you do have to be a citizen. Those folks ought to be required to provide proof of citizenship too. Otherwise we’ll have undocumented immigrants filling up the seats in Congress and proposing who knows what kinds of idiotic legislation.
So what’s the problem with Posey’s bill? For starters, it doesn’t include candidates for the United States Senate or House of Representatives. You don’t have to be native born to serve in Congress, but you do have to be a citizen. Those folks ought to be required to provide proof of citizenship too. Otherwise we’ll have undocumented immigrants filling up the seats in Congress and proposing who knows what kinds of idiotic legislation.
An even bigger problem with the bill is its failure to say anything about job qualifications. Say you want to get a barber’s license. You have to demonstrate to somebody that you know how to cut hair. Prospective drivers have to take a road test and a written test to prove they can aim a car and that they know at least in theory where they should and shouldn’t aim it. Aspiring college professors have to earn PhD’s by doing research on arcane topics and showing they can write about it in ways sufficiently opaque to human comprehension. What about politicians? Shouldn’t they possess more than the minimal qualification of U.S. citizenship?
An even bigger problem with the bill is its failure to say anything about job qualifications. Say you want to get a barber’s license. You have to demonstrate to somebody that you know how to cut hair. Prospective drivers have to take a road test and a written test to prove they can aim a car and that they know at least in theory where they should and shouldn’t aim it. Aspiring college professors have to earn PhD’s by doing research on arcane topics and showing they can write about it in ways sufficiently opaque to human comprehension. What about politicians? Shouldn’t they possess more than the minimal qualification of U.S. citizenship?
Of course they should. If somebody wants to run for high office, say anything above the level of dog catcher, he or she should have to show some kind of aptitude or skill relevant to the job. And I don’t mean fund raising ability, a degree in advanced hand shaking and baby kissing, or a highly cultivated skill at forming intimate relations with lobbyists. We must set the bar higher than that.I propose a multi-faceted approach. First, since there is no evidence that holding public office cures mental illness, candidates should be given a rigorous psychiatric evaluation and then rated. The evaluation would be conducted by a panel of psychiatrists chosen at random, who would be required to make a summary judgment: “not crazy,” “crazy,” or “crazy, but not enough to disqualify.” The rating could include informative comments such as “not considered a danger to self and others,” “suffers from political psychosis,” “not known to have run naked in the streets,” or “sex addict.”Second, candidates must prove they are not idiots. People who were idiots before running for office are not likely to experience remission from the condition while in office. Proof would require, first, a minimum passing grade on a new “National Political Boards Examination,” similar to medical board examinations administered to physicians looking for certification. Candidates must also obtain minimum scores on at least three tests chosen from a selection of intelligence and aptitude tests — Stanford-Binet, Miller Analogies, SAT, GRE, MCAT, LSAT, etc. Candidates would be required to offer such additional information as they can produce about their professional, family, and community activities in order to pass muster. The burden of proof is Napoleonic, i.e., on the candidate: idiotic until proven not idiotic. No brains, no public office!
Of course they should. If somebody wants to run for high office, say anything above the level of dog catcher, he or she should have to show some kind of aptitude or skill relevant to the job. And I don’t mean fund raising ability, a degree in advanced hand shaking and baby kissing, or a highly cultivated skill at forming intimate relations with lobbyists. We must set the bar higher than that.I propose a multi-faceted approach. First, since there is no evidence that holding public office cures mental illness, candidates should be given a rigorous psychiatric evaluation and then rated. The evaluation would be conducted by a panel of psychiatrists chosen at random, who would be required to make a summary judgment: “not crazy,” “crazy,” or “crazy, but not enough to disqualify.” The rating could include informative comments such as “not considered a danger to self and others,” “suffers from political psychosis,” “not known to have run naked in the streets,” or “sex addict.”Second, candidates must prove they are not idiots. People who were idiots before running for office are not likely to experience remission from the condition while in office. Proof would require, first, a minimum passing grade on a new “National Political Boards Examination,” similar to medical board examinations administered to physicians looking for certification. Candidates must also obtain minimum scores on at least three tests chosen from a selection of intelligence and aptitude tests — Stanford-Binet, Miller Analogies, SAT, GRE, MCAT, LSAT, etc. Candidates would be required to offer such additional information as they can produce about their professional, family, and community activities in order to pass muster. The burden of proof is Napoleonic, i.e., on the candidate: idiotic until proven not idiotic. No brains, no public office!
Third, candidates must demonstrate a degree of literacy relevant to the offices they seek. Candidates for the Presidency and for the United States Senate and House of Representatives, for example, must demonstrate a working knowledge of at least one language. A college degree is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate literacy. A three hour written examination — in camera, no take-homes allowed, no study guides provided — followed by a two hour oral examination will provide the basis for determining if the candidate has met this requirement. No extra credit for glibness or spin control, and points deducted for speaking the language of Joe Sixpack.
Third, candidates must demonstrate a degree of literacy relevant to the offices they seek. Candidates for the Presidency and for the United States Senate and House of Representatives, for example, must demonstrate a working knowledge of at least one language. A college degree is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate literacy. A three hour written examination — in camera, no take-homes allowed, no study guides provided — followed by a two hour oral examination will provide the basis for determining if the candidate has met this requirement. No extra credit for glibness or spin control, and points deducted for speaking the language of Joe Sixpack.
Critics will charge that if these proposals were law, many current elected officials could not have run for office.
Critics will charge that if these proposals were law, many current elected officials could not have run for office.
Indeed.
Indeed.