When you think about it, we conduct a fairly peculiar job interview for the presidency.
I mean, does a campaign really provide answers to the questions you would ask if you alone were in charge of hiring Al Gore or George W. Bush for this position? Does what transpires in all these months before the election zero in on what you think is needed for the job?
I for one would ask some different questions–and de-emphasize some of the old standards. Consider, for example, two matters we seem to have deemed infinitely important. Have the candidates run a business? And, what was their military service?
Sunday’s New York Times asked the business question, couching it in typical fashion and quoting people on each side to show that their guy is the one with the requisite stuff. “Gore has never been a businessman,” said Lawrence Lindsay, economic adviser to Bush. “Bush knows what it is to try to run a company and how frustrating regulation can be.”
And, from the other corner, “George Bush failed in more businesses than he succeeded in,” said Greg Simon, Gore’s telecommunications adviser. “And Al Gore has probably spent more time with the leading businessmen than anyone I know.”
Running a company (or several); spending time with businessmen: These will tell you something about a man, sure. But are they more important than, say, understanding science? Presidents today are constantly drawn into health-care issues, medical ethics, scientific research, HMOs, prescription drugs, Medicare. RU-486 and the morning-after pill. The effects of smoking. Genetically modified food. Global warming. Why should business experience be so important while scientific understanding is not?
Or, how about education? On any given day, it’s the first subject out of these candidates’ mouths. Yet we don’t worry about whether they’ve ever taught (reading picture books in countless classrooms doesn’t count), or how much time they’ve spent with principals. A good educator must be at once knowledgeable and effective at conveying that knowledge. Presidents must communicate with the press, Congress, the people and other world leaders. Why should business experience count more than good teaching skills?
Maybe business ranks up there at the top because we want to be confident a candidate can run something. OK. How about a household–particularly one that can’t take a high income for granted? Have these guys balanced the family books? Have they ever had to figure out what not to pay for this month in order to finance that unexpected roof repair? I know we’re not going to require experience at homelessness, but real-world budget-balancing would be nice.
The other perennial question concerns military experience. It’s appropriate that we weigh Gore’s volunteering for service (as a correspondent) in Vietnam versus Bush’s fighter-pilot days in the Texas Air National Guard. But the armed forces aren’t the only important preparation for world leadership–or even for protecting U.S. security.
What about how much time a candidate has spent overseas? Or how thoroughly they’ve followed foreign affairs over the years? Why would we think it’s a good idea to hire as our leader–the most influential political figure in the world–someone about whose level of interest or depth of knowledge in foreign affairs we know little?
For that matter, why is military service more important than some evidence that a man knows how to negotiate? To resolve disputes? To sit down at a table and be persuasive in complex and difficult situations?
Beyond being a businessman and a soldier, there’s so much else that matters. Like taking care of children. What role did these men play in their own kids’ young childhood? How many parent-teacher conferences did they go to? Or how about their communities? Have they been volunteers? Supported local charities? The arts?
Our great presidents have been men of broad interests, men who were grounded in family and community, knowledgeable men who knew what they believed in and conveyed it effectively. At this point, we seem to have one job applicant who knows a whole lot but lacks the human skills to get it across and another who knows a lot less but is considerably more appealing.
As the folks doing the hiring, we don’t at this stage have the luxury to toss these two back in the pool and ask for additional applicants. We’re faced with the necessity of finding out whatever else we can, weighing the pluses and minuses, and then choosing the better qualified.
