What job experience would you like to see in a Presidential candidate?

[onlinebiker]

Somebody with a lifetime record of public service, and no ties to major corporations or rich people.

The first so that I know they'll work for the phblic good, the second so I know they're not corrupt.

I know way more poor people who are corrupt as fuck than I do rich ones.....

[Yonadav]

I don't think there is an occupation that makes a person suitable to be president. Let's say that I want someone who is the Adrian Monk of uncovering corruption and identifying the culprits. Why would I want that person to be president? I would want them to be working for the president. Aside from excellent leadership skills, there aren't any professional skills that I need in a president. But excellent leadership skills can make someone a really bad president or a really good one, depending on their priorities. But what profession is going to help them prioritize well? Professional philosopher? In theory, someone who understands formal logic so well should be a great choice. But do any of us want to vote for a professional philosopher? Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were great politcal theorists. But in our times, would we have elected someone like John Rawls, who has arguably had the strongest influence on modern liberal political thought?

We need a president to be diplomatic. But is a professional diplomat going to be a good president? A lot of presidents have acquired diplomatic credentials through the military, or elected office, or through other public service. A lot of business people have developed diplomatic credentials. But the line between diplomat and political operator is not entirely clear. We tend to distrust diplomats because they are scheming operators. We don't know what the hell they are trading for what they come back with. Someone knows, but the rest of us don't. We don't trust them. We think that they smell funny.

So I don't know. I need leadership, but that can come from leading a crew of janitors for all I care. I need proper priorities, but I want them to be pretty much aligned with mine. I want diplomacy, but I don't want a professional diplomat because those guys too mysterious. (You should listen to me about the diplomats. I have two friends who are former US ambassadors)

[The Grand Nudger]

In seriousness, I'm of the opinion that military or civil service ought to be a requirement for holding office.  I'd actually prefer a unit or community level pro - someone who's deeply and personally familiar with the human cost of their decisions.  The notion being that potus is the first citizen, our advocate - not a talking head for business or bureaucracy. They don't really need to have policies aligned with mine, but it's crucial that their policies be aligned with the public good.

[Yonadav]

I don't like designating proving grounds for political leadership because it politicizes the proving grounds.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Someone who has spent a lifetime being Barack Obama would be a pretty qualified candidate.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

All the hypothetical proving grounds are already heavily politicized. "Businessman" and "community organizer" are essentially brand identifiers at this point, for example.

[Yonadav]

It's true that hypothetical proving grounds are politicized, but they are not heavily politicized. Designated proving grounds would become heavily politicized. I don't want the military to be an officially designated political proving ground. We'll have officers making military decisions for political reasons. The military will become a political party where the generals are specifically grooming aspirants for the presidency. Our military is not supposed to be political. Civil service is not supposed to be political. One of the things that makes government work is that its bureaucracies are apolitical. Designate them as official proving grounds through which one must pass to aspire to the presidency, and they basically become state run political parties.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[justathought] Having preset requirements could mean that someone who is highly qualified wouldn't be eligible.

[tackattack]

I think a someone with a top secret military clearance, who;s worked in areas of finance and technology, done a stint as a drill instructor and a coach for an organized school sport. A personal history of philanthropy, missionary work, or voluntary community service would help. Mainly I agree with a lot of the points made: someone who can think for themselves, understands dealing with difficult people, understands self-sacrifice, can pick a tem that rounds out his faults, shows community buy in and compassion, has a tested character background, integrity and general honesty.

If I saw a candidate that ran a smear campaign on himself to admit his faults, but not on the other candidates, then debates well on important policies and explained how we could overcome his own faults, and then dismantles the opponents arguments logically and honestly I think I'd actually check myself into a hospital for fear of delusions. I don't think I could accept that there is integrity in politics, it's almost axiomatically negative at that scale/scope, IMO.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yah gotta stick that missionary shit in there, don't yah.