Elective Office

[JOEBIALEK]

One of the ambitious proposals put forth by former Vice-President Al Gore was the "re-invention" of government. While the Clinton Administration may have made some progress towards promoting greater efficiency, the result was that government actually grew in size mainly because of bureaucratic self-perpetuation. No one in the United States would disagree that the reduction of government waste should be given top priority. However, before tackling such a problem, one must examine the root causes and not merely treat the symptoms.

When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they deliberately left out the "structural path" of elective office but were very clear on names of offices, branches of government, duties of elected officials etcetera. However, what they failed to foresee was the need for elective offices to follow a required path. For example, take the leader of the executive branch; if a person wants to be elected president of the United States, they must first serve as mayor of a city, commissioner of a county and then governor of a state. The two-term limit (eight years) should also be extended to include these lower chief executives as well.

The legislative branch should have a similar path. If one wants to be elected United States senator, they must first serve as a U.S. congressperson from that state. Before serving as a congressperson, they must serve as a councilperson of a city, representative of a state and then as a state senator. The two-term limit should apply here as well.

As for the judicial branch, a United States supreme court justice must serve as a municipal court judge of a city, common pleas court judge of a county, circuit court or district court judge of a state, appeals court judge and state supreme court judge. The two-term limit would apply here also.

Furthermore, the education of these candidates to-be should entail the equivalent of earning a bachelors degree, masters degree and a doctorate in philosophy degree. These degrees must be earned prior to running for elective office. Besides providing a focused academic training it will promote a greater maturity in our candidates before they experience the rigors of their first elective office.

Few could doubt that this path would provide good practical training for those seeking higher office while at the same time establishing a track record that voters could more easily analyze and understand. The two-term limit would allow greater participation because the office would be wide open every eight years. This would force the elected official to properly execute his/her duties and not be as influenced by the various special interest groups.

Government today is often seen as part of the problem rather than a solution to the problem. Perhaps if the United States would consider a path of development for its "philosopher kings" public trust would return and something may actually get done.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by JOEBIALEK

Furthermore, the education of these candidates to-be should entail the equivalent of earning a bachelors degree, masters degree and a doctorate in philosophy degree. These degrees must be earned prior to running for elective office. Besides providing a focused academic training it will promote a greater maturity in our candidates before they experience the rigors of their first elective office.

Why? This is a really dumb suggestion. Do you honestly want a guy with a degree in philosophy making decisions on conflict and finance? Would you want your super cool college professor who went to the bar with you running the nation....?

Few could doubt that this path would provide good practical training for those seeking higher office while at the same time establishing a track record that voters could more easily analyze and understand. The two-term limit would allow greater participation because the office would be wide open every eight years. This would force the elected official to properly execute his/her duties and not be as influenced by the various special interest groups.

This makes no sense. Yes, almost all men who run for president served in Congress or in executive office in some state. But MOST people who serve in those offices will NEVER be president, and may never have the desire, ambition, or cash to do so. Why shouldn't they be allowed to serve their state if the public keeps calling on them to do so???

Government today is often seen as part of the problem rather than a solution to the problem. Perhaps if the United States would consider a path of development for its "philosopher kings" public trust would return and something may actually get done.

The problem with politicians is that they already HAVE a far too contrived path layed out for them. Go to school, then go to law school (never practice), then work on a campaign, run for office, and on and on....what would be so terrible about altering that path? WHY do they need to have a silly PhD or law degree from a really snotty private school???

[theapportioner]

Funny, just today a coworker of mine pointed out to me how many of the founding fathers were also scientists - Franklin, Jefferson notably. Now, the most significant scientific/medical figure in American politics is a travesty to his profession (Frist).

[Marc Summers]

Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V from the Boston Herald

[Emu]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Why? This is a really dumb suggestion. Do you honestly want a guy with a degree in philosophy making decisions on conflict and finance?

I think he means a degree in philosophy on top of a degree in economics or whatever. Which is still a lot.

[theapportioner]

I believe he means PhD in general, not a PhD specifically in philosophy.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's still a silly suggestion, IMO.

This guy should just get a blog, I think he posts his term papers here.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Marc Summers

Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V from the Boston Herald

no, he's posting someone else's term papers...

[theapportioner]

It certainly is a retarded suggestion, but I do feel we could use more intellectuals in office. The Enlightenment spirit of the Founding Fathers is, shall we say, a bit lacking these days.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think it's also worth noting that several of the founding fathers married into money, thus granting more time to be intellectuals.

[theapportioner]

I'd do that

[JOEBIALEK]

good points

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You're a tool.