November 30, 2006
President Must Pass Aptitude Test
by Jack Lee
Thinking out loud now, but should we require a Presidential candidate (or even other high office candidates) to first qualify for running by passing a basic civics exam?
Outside the surreal world of politics, "we the people" have to jump through all sorts of hoops, including remedial testing and background checks before we get hired. This is the real world.
Some jobs require you to pass a psycological test, some may even require an aptitude test. Our bosses at all levels of employment have many creative tests to make sure they gets the best quality employee they can. Why should we voters settle for any less, especially when it comes to the President of the United States?
Testing is nothing new to our culture. Throughout our school years we have proficiency tests to determine if we can move on to the next grade level right up to college entrance exams and beyond. We also have special exams for high security positions too. Isn't the Presidency the ultimate in a high security job? Shouldn't he/she be tested so we know they are mentally fit? So is it THAT unreasonable to require elected officials to share some of those same real life burdens and in the process assure us they are all they claim to be?
Given all the corruption and incompetence that we have witnessed in government, I really have to wonder if the time has not come for a pre-election test?
I want to know if candidates for high office really understand the basics for good government and what better way to show it than through test scores? Call me, demanding, but I want to be assured by some small measure my candidate understands the Constitution and the fundamentals of running a democracy! This also means having a knowledge of basic accounting and business practices, plus some history, geography and foreign policy knowledge too.
How about incorporating an IQ test and a personality test? Seems reasonable to me. And while we're at it, why not require a polygraph test? Then have all the answers made public. I know what you are thinking, then most of our politician wannabe's would drop out because we asking for too much honesty! Actually, I think this might clear the field of the bums who run on money and BS and get us a whole new breed of candidates. Like those who might not have otherwise been inclined to run, knowing how stacked the election system is for those who are connected or have the bucks. Just think, if we tested for brains, ethics and job comprehension before they could run for office! Wouldn't that be a nice combination in a candidate? Wouldn't it be refreshing?
Well, ok, I know you are still worried about having zero candidates qualify, then suppose we gave the test with no failing grade and then we make the results public and let the voters decide? Would that be any more palatable? Why not? Do you want the President to get in there by making backroom deals and being a really, really good BS'er with no common sense, morals or leadership? The demands of this high office are just too critical to leave it entirely up to election spin doctors who tell voters what to think and what we should know...I would rather know what a candidate knows and thinks, wouldn't you?
As it is, the worlds most demanding job, where the leader of the free world has his finger on the nuclear trigger has virtually no qualifications except for his age and citizenship. Without testing for intelligence, leadership and morals, I think we could get some real duds, like a lying pervert or a softhearted idiot for a President. Hey, it's a stretch of the imagination to think like that....but it could happen. Better to test. What do you think?
Posted by Post Scripts at November 30, 2006 09:54 AM