I was just reading a blog post about the experience/inexperience of Caroline Kennedy and her fitness to be a Senator. There has been a lot of trash talk lately about candidates for all sorts of offices, from president to dog catcher. OK, I don't know about the dog catcher. Yet there are no definitive qualifications for most of these positions. To be a Senator, you must be 30 years old and have been a citizen for the past 9 years. That's it. Oops! And you need to be a resident of the state you wish to represent.
It seems to me that if the founding fathers wanted the candidates to have more experience for the job, they would have written it into the Constitution. And if we, as a nation, think that more experience is needed, we can amend that same Constitution. Well, they didn't and we haven't. Those who wish to argue that point need to turn to the mirror and argue it there, with someone who will agree with them. Or care.
And, as we know, 'Junior Senators' are not allowed to touch the steering wheel or press on the gas pedal for as long as it takes before the 'Good Old Boys' of the Senate approve of them. Now that's something that needs fixing! I'm a dedicated foe of 'Seniority' as it has nothing to do with reality. You're good at the job or you're not. End of story.
I'm with you on that. As soon as you start adding requirements for experience/expertise/education/what-have-you, you open a big can of worms and you go from democracy to meritocracy. In a democracy, it doesn't matter if the candidate is inexperienced, the voters aren't and they make the decision. Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best we got.
ReplyDelete