THE ENTERPRISE--The Leading Candidates' Qualifications
KIPLINGER CALLS IT RIGHT
I have subscribed to Knight Kiplinger's KIPLINGER LETTER for years. It is full of the most useful forecasts I can find, and seems to always hit the important topics at the right times. In this week's edition, it does so again. As Knight Kiplinger so aptly puts it, it is not a pretty scenario...
AN EXCERPT:
Can government do anything right? Voters of all stripes are screaming NO.
Complaints to Congress, federal agencies, pollsters and anyone who’ll listen are way up. The public blames Bush, federal bureaucrats, the Democratic Congress and even local leaders. Competence will be a big issue in 2008. It’s already helping some candidates...Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, for example, because they have more management experience. It’s also the reason that Michael Bloomberg, NYC’s can-do mayor, is getting attention. And it hurts newcomers...Barack Obama, in particular...and probably John Edwards, too.
No candidate is offering solutions. Democrats accuse Bush of incompetence,while Republicans call for leaner government but don’t suggest how to make it work better. Ultimately, all incumbents are at risk. The GOP is blamed for weakening the government; Democrats, for failing to deliver on promises.
The public has a lot to complain about: A badly managed war, poor care of wounded vets, porous borders, lost laptops with key data, food & drug safety, and now, falling bridges. Plus a do-nothing Congress.
Are things really worse? Experts say yes. Sure, complaints about government go back centuries, but this is one of the low points.Why so bad? Partisanship blocks compromise. Both parties would rather score political points than make deals to pass legislation. Another reason: Bush’s distrust of bureaucrats... crippled morale and led to an exodus of experienced workers. That was fine up to a point because it cut government interference. But when government was needed... after Hurricane Katrina hit, for example...it wasn’t up to the job and couldn’t provide adequate oversight for private contractors.
Will it get any better? Eventually. Voters will insist on it. Americans will never agree on just what role government should play, but they do want a government that is capable of meeting basic needs... whether that’s relief after a disaster or issuing a passport on time. But it will take years to develop or recruit experienced managers, reinvigorate systems that have atrophied and reenergize the bureaucracy.
--------------------------------------------------
©The Kiplinger Letter, Aug. 10, 2007
A RADICAL IDEA--JUDGE THEM ON QUALIFICATIONS
With that somewhat dire set of comments, I'd like to devote the rest of this issue to a method that is common in business and almost entirely neglected in elections and politics: choosing people based on qualifications instead of personality, fame or ability to "perform"--speak and campaign well. Someone once said "politics is like Hollywood for ugly people." While that isn't quite right--it's not too far wrong.
IT IS TIME WE CHANGED THAT...AND JUDGED CANDIDATES BASED ON THEIR QUALIFICATIONS, NOT THEIR PERSONA.
Forget the names, the faces and the media hype. We hire people in companies and not-for-profit organizations based on qualifications. Should we not do it the same way in choosing elected leaders? Shouldn't we?
Read the "thumbnail" points I have listed below: qualifications, backgrounds and so forth. These are far from complete. I was just hitting the high spots/low spots, but they do provide a sense of the candidates "resumes." I have shown my 0-10 rating on three critical leadership attributes: Character, Courage and Competence, where 0 = terrible/none and 10 = superb, outstanding. Feel free to disagree. This has to be a dialogue, not just a diatribe. Do your own ratings.
Group 1
1. A freshman, African-American US Senator, recently a relatively obscure state Senator, who has never led anything other than his college law review, but is a charismatic speaker and an engaging personality, with very little experience and no policy making background. Largest negative-serious inexperience and questionable leadership competence.
--Character 8, Courage 8 and Competence 4 = (20)
2. A second term, competent female Senator, who is a long time political wife and former "First Lady" but one who was embroiled in messy scandals, and has never led any kind of organization, (other than a campaign organization) although she was a lawyer from Arkansas before her husband became first, the governor of Arkansas and then President of the US, noted mostly for her sustained "marriage of convenience" in spite of her husband's transgressions. Largest negative-dishonest, two-faced.
--Character 3, Courage 8 and Competence 9 = (20)
3. A rich lawyer, former VP candidate & loser in 2004, who lives in a huge house and pampers himself with expensive haircuts and spa treatments, campaigns while his wife is suffering with cancer, and is trying to position himself as the candidate who will look out for the poor working people. Largest negative-a “pretty boy” without substance, rich, but acting like he is all for the poor.
--Character 5, Courage 5 and Competence 5 = (15)
Group 2
1. The tough former mayor of NYC, who distinguished himself by "cleaning up NYC" and being a stalwart leader of the New York people during the trying times following 9/11, thrice divorced (one particularly messy), and estranged from his adult children, and somewhat at odds with the mainstream of his party. Largest negative-3 marriages, dysfunctional family life, and can be abrasive.
--Character 4, Courage 9 and Competence 8 = (20)
2. An accomplished actor, speaker and a lawyer, who was a 1-1/2 term Senator, and a former Whitewater prosecutor, but has never led any organization, who is also divorced and re-married to a much younger (and very attractive), but brilliant woman, and who left the Senate amidst the loss of a child and his loss of enthusiasm for the political life. Largest negative-“trophy wife” & relatively inexperienced.
--Character 7, Courage 6 and Competence 5 = (18)
3. A long-term family man, with five children, who has been a successful business leader, a prominent civic leader (who turned around a badly troubled Olympics shortly after 9/11), and was elected governor and leader of a state that is dominated by the other party, where he led the state toward a solution for its nagging health care problems. Largest negative: His Mormon faith, ...and he flip-flopped on some issues for the National campaign from positions as governor of a liberal Eastern state.
--Character 9, Courage 8 and Competence 9 = (26)
4. A long time Senator, former Vietnam POW, still handicapped from those injuries, who is a fiery and rebellious moderate, often at odds with his own party, but never failing to take on tough issues, even when his position was unpopular or questionable, but who would be age 72 when/if elected and age 73 when inaugurated. Largest negative; “Strong willed” to the point of being “cantankerous.” and too old!
--Character 7, Courage 10 and Competence 5 = (23)
Electability must factor in somewhere, but first let's focus on qualifications and the person. If you accept that Group 1 and Group 2 have quite different philosophies about how the country should be led and run, you can choose just one from each group. Then you must choose between those two philosophies (Here is another brief oversimplification to describe those differing philosophies).
--Democrats: the government knows best, and must collect and distribute money because it will do it more wisely than the people governed--and it will need to take care of those people (and charge higher taxes to do so). Talk to the terrorists, and reason with them, but don't offend their sensibilities.
--Republicans: People should be allowed to choose how to spend, allocate and use what they earn. It is better to have lower taxes such that everyone be help grow the economy in a free enterprise, capitalistic system. This will result in a prosperous country, which will not need higher taxes. Be on guard and defend against terrorist threats, stopping them aggressively at every turn--before they attack again.
Can you block out your preferences and biases and to simply consider the candidate's relevant experience, character and proven leadership qualification, and that these are the most important decision factors and reasons for that person to be nominated and then elected President? Forget about George Bush. Concentrate on the future.
I've shown my ratings. Depending on the day I do them, they vary by a few points here and there, but the outcomes are not much different. You should do yours. I tried to minimize my agreement or disagreement on political philosophy and concentrate on the leadership characteristics we so desperately need in this country and in the eyes of the world.
One final premise that I believe to be true: The US seems to work best when one party “controls” the Congress and the other “controls” the White House. Why? “Checks and balances"— no matter which party controls which.
Who's the most qualified candidate of the leading ones for each party? Who can lead us out of this morass we are in. That matters a lot. Think about it. Discuss it. Then stand up and be counted--both verbally before the primaries, and when it comes time to support candidates and vote for them. That's the American way.
Best, John
Comments