What is good training for holding political office?

[Sisyphus]

Obviously, the short answer is "depends." Different offices and different points in history require different sorts of leaders. I acknowledge that. But I'm speaking generally, and am talking not so much about personalities as resumes.

 

For example, the most obvious path would be from lawyer to politician: the formal study of law is the most obvious training for a lawmaker. A competent lawyer understands how the law works and why it works that way, and must be adept at quickly learning about diverse and unexpected subjects, must know how to see issues from multiple angles (well enough to argue either side of an issue), and, of course, must know how to convince people. These are all both a)good qualities for a leader, and b)useful skills in running for office, which is reflected in the large proportion of officeholders with law degrees. Of course, in practice these skills can be used for evil as well as good. Also, most people don't particularly like lawyers. (One amusing statistic: Five U.S. Presidents have had law degrees. Six U.S. Presidents were law school dropouts.)

 

The next-most often cited qualification is military service. Presumably it demonstrates patriotism, courage, and willingness to sacrifice. The patriotism in particular makes one's stated intentions, that one is running for office for the good of one's country, more credible and less likely to be simple ambition. Actually serving is also perceived to instill honor, discipline, and maturity. Holding high rank demonstrates ability to lead large organizations, as well as the intelligence and dedication needed to achieve that rank. And, if the office involves possibly controlling military matters, experience in that area is an obvious advantage. Even serving in low ranks, though it might not be useful experience for, say, a Commander in Chief, still has the benefit of making commands more credible: I would be more willing to follow orders of someone who had been in my position and endured the same dangers and hardships. Of course, none of this is necessarily the case. John Kerry is widely suspected of serving in the military as part of his political plans (you know, to be like JFK). George Bush seems to have served in his position (in the National Guard, flying a plane with no plans to be used in Vietnam) specifically to avoid combat service. Running an army is not necessarily much like running a country or serving in a legislature. Nonetheless, a whopping 28 U.S. Presidents have served in one capacity or another, and it has always been valued highly by the electorate.

 

That's all I have for now, but I have some other things vaguely in mind. Business enterprises? Academia? Medicine?

[Daecon]

Taking a course in Critical Thinking should be mandatory.

 

I'd also suggest undergoing a full psychological profile, and having the results made available to anyone who wishes to view them.

[Phi for All]

Too... many... jokes. Must... fight... the... urge.

 

Actually, I'd like to see more cross-pollination of skills. This is happening a lot in business these days, with communications executives joining architectural firms, or IT managers being brought into markets which didn't use them five years ago. Tired policies and outmoded processes become revitalized with the new POV and new ways of doing the same old are bridging the gap between what used to be and what can be.

 

We've talked before about a scientist running for office. Wouldn't it be great to have an analytical mind in Washington who could *use* all the studies we've funded rather than covering them up? Someone who believes knowledge is more important than the profits of campaign contributors?

[ParanoiA]

Anything in law, political science, history and economics. I agree with your first paragraph, in that they should be able to get up to speed on subjects that are relevant and current. Perhaps that's the most important feature of an office holder, in my mind.

 

When you look at current events and issues, they're all over the place. War, abortion, global warming - all of them different studies entirely. A responsible office holder needs to learn about these subjects, not simply be "advised" on them. And when I say learn, I mean learn. This means absorbing material from ALL sides of the issue, critical thinking, critical questioning - and taking the time to do this. An office holder shouldn't be afraid to say they're not sure where they stand yet as they are investigating and learning about the matter at hand first - will never happen in my wildest dreams.

 

I think I've said this before, that an office holder should be an expert in law, history, economics, political science. We shouldn't be trying to find someone that thinks like us - that's ridiculous - we should be trying to elect people that are impressively intelligent on this stuff. So when we make stupid ascertions about taxes and revenue, they calmly force down their smile and correct us.

[cosine]

Philosophy should be a good course for presidential candidates.

 

I seriously think that people who have something to gain by winning the presidency should not be president.

[ParanoiA]

Philosophy should be a good course for presidential candidates.

 

I seriously think that people who have something to gain by winning the presidency should not be president.

 

Yeah. You have to wonder about people who basically spend loads and loads of more money getting the job, than what the job pays.

[Sisyphus]

Yeah. You have to wonder about people who basically spend loads and loads of more money getting the job, than what the job pays.

 

Ha. That would be an interesting campaign finance law. Can't spend more than $400,000?

[ParanoiA]

Ha. That would be an interesting campaign finance law. Can't spend more than $400,000?

 

Wouldn't it though? At the very least, I would love for that to be a question for them to answer at the debates..."Uh, Mr Guliani, Mr. 9/11 poster boy fraudster, could you explain to us why you have spent, so far, 11.2 million dollars to get a $400,000 dollar a year job?"