perryspeaks

AMERICAN DILEMMA


What does a country do when it finds itself in the predicament of having an incompetent head of state? Does it ride out his term, hoping that things can be straightened out after he leaves office? Does it commence all necessary means to remove him post-haste? Is 'incompetence' enough in and of ITSELF to remove a head of state, before his term expires?

America now finds itself grappling with these questions. HOW it ultimately resolves this dilemma will have ramifications for future generations!

This predicament has its roots in the WAY in which we select our head of state. For all practical purposes, if not from the beginning, at least in RECENT times, the American president has become effectively a CEO - of the United States of America, Inc.! As such, the position should be TREATED with all of the expectations and responsibilities so ascribed!

One would think that after some 230 years of subscribing to our form of government, Americans would have come up with a more INTELLIGENT, RATIONAL way to select our head of state. Instead of viewing this position as the spoils of VICTORY on the part of one political party or the other, this position should be separated out of the process and defined on its OWN terms!

Namely, 'CEO, United States of America, Inc.' should have a job description drawn up for it as ANY company with such a position would. Drawing upon its 230-year history, the country should be able to come to a consensus as to what the 'minimum requirements' anyone aspiring to this position should bring to the table. This would include whatever regular or usual qualifications one in such a position (i.e., CEO) should have, as well as whatever qualifications might be deemed unique to this PARTICULAR post.

Obviously, one would want the holder of said position to possess the usual traits of personality - ability to think in a rational, logical manner, ability to maintain composure under pressure, ability to receive counsel with an open mind, ability to intellectualize a problem, ability to objectively weigh all sides of an issue, ability to come to a decision based on one's best judgement of all of the factors involved in an issue, etc.

This country has a rich history of events, incidences, tragedies, and happenings which presidents have had to deal with. Everything from Washington's oversight of the constitutional congress, Jefferson's negotiation of the Louisiana Purchase, Jackson's handling (or mis-handling) of the Indian resettlements, Lincoln's procecution of the civil war, Roosevelt's response to Pearl Harbor, to Kennedy's resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc., could be used as fodder.

Surely, our country's brightest minds from all disciplines of academia, business and political spheres could be brought together to analyze such experiences, with the aim of ascertaining what qualities the president possessed which enabled him to successfully deal with a particular incident? Conversely, it could be determined what qualities were lacking which PREVENTED a president from successfully resolving an incident. From the resulting data, these minds should be able to develope a composition of what an 'ideal president' should look like, capable of successfully handling any unforeseen event which our country might experience in the future.

These traits would be expressed as 'qualifications' and 'experiences' one should bring to the table, IRRESPECTIVE of his or her 'political' persuasion! Additionally, some form of 'aptitude test' could be developed, which could be administered to aspiring candidates, to see how they stacked up against this 'ideal candidate'?

Alternatively, some type of module drawing upon this data could be developed, which would 'immerse' prospective candidates into experiences MIMICING real life, aimed at identifying how 'successfully' he or she handled a particular situation? This would be the equivalent of a simulation module's being adapted to the peculiarities of this position, similar to those used to train astronauts, pilots, etc. Hopefully, such an 'immersion' technique would elicit the true response of how one would react to similar events in REAL life!

Drawing from history, let's use the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is acknowledged that this incident is the closest time the world has ever come to actually having been engulfed in a nuclear war. It may literally be true that we might not be having this discussion right now, had this crisis not been resolved successfully! What characteristics did President Kennedy possess which enabled him to resist buckling under such immense pressure, giving in to Kruschev, while, at the same time, not reacting TOO extremely, causing KRUSCHEV to react by giving the order to launch?

Now, with the idea of the simulator in mind, let's swap out Kennedy and his administration, replacing him with Bush and his cabinet in THEIR respective roles - Rove, Chaney, Condi and Rumsfeld. Now, close your eyes and imagine Bush et al the way we have come to understand how THEY operate, dealing with this crisis, with all else's being the same - i.e., Kruschev, Castro, the Soviet Union, etc. Now, open your eyes and see how much you have sweated? Did I make my point?

My point is that it matters who the person in the position of president IS. More specifically, it matters how QUALIFIED for the position this person is! In spite of how many handlers a president might have, the ndividual in this capacity STILL has tremendous impact on the outcome of situations being handled by the office. As hard as it is to imagine how much WORSE things could be than they are right now, I shudder to even ATTEMPT to contemplate what the state of affairs might be if this man was out there winging it on his own!

Botton line: we made a mistake when we elected this man as president! If President Bush has proven nothing ELSE beyond a reasonable doubt, during his almost-six years in office, he has proven that he is LACKING in whatever it takes to make a successful, competent president!
However painful it might be for some to arrive at this realization, we as a nation need to face this issue honestly, with the hope of learning enough from this experience that we might address this issue to the effect that no FUTURE generation will have to face a similar situation, if at all possible!

So, let us as a nation establish the qualifications for this position and disseminate them so that every American citizen may see in objective terms what is expected of our president. Even if this is not made a MANDATORY test, the public can make up its OWN mind as to what to make of prospective candidates who decline having the test administered to them, versus those who PASSED same. It would be one more tool at the public's disposal to assist in their making choices.

Had we such a tool at our disposal already, I am certain that one such as a George Bush would have gotten WEEDED OUT of the process!