The common Q?

Contributing factors may shed a glimmer of light on the condition our condition is in

*Self-Selection - in a constitutional republic no individual is born to office, there is no hereditary mandate or obligation to serve. Rather, any office seeker need only “throw in the metaphorical hat.” A few basic prerequisites such as age and citizenship exist but nary a nod to qualifying credentials - any sentient citizen can run. Community leaders showing up on the porch of a model citizen pleading for him or her to run for office happens only in Jimmy Stewart movies. In an elective system like ours the opportunities for desperately inept candidates to self-select and acquire public office are a certainty.

*Humility Deficit – not only do individuals with few relevant qualifications run for office they can win for a variety of reasons to include being the best of a very weak bench. Those with scant personal accomplishments cannot rely on acquired humility borne of successes and failures therefore hubris must suffice. According to Shakespeare, “a fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.” The only way to acquire wise man/woman status is demonstrative achievement over time, therefore, some candidates simply do not have the patience to acquire knowledge nor the wisdom to wait.

*One Dimensional – some candidates are motivated to run for office because they successfully advocated for a one-time local policy issue – like helping prevent a road widening project or runway extension. There is nothing disqualifying about one-off successes, they can be a great learning experience, but are poor predictors of other traits desired of policymakers like good judgement, relevant expertise, conscientiousness, and the ability to reach comity with others for the common good. These candidates, often labeled as activists, tend to champion issues totally absent a holistic community vision. Rabid activists of any flavor are more likely to bring discord than concord.

*Age - the associated advantages and disadvantages of age are obvious enough. Too young may mean a paucity of experience or lack of life’s successes and failures necessary to acquire practical knowledge and concomitant wisdom. Too old may simply mean the absence of physical and/or mental energy needed to manage complex emerging issues. Candidates too old or too young are especially vulnerable to dubious influencers wanting to manipulate levers without accountability. Too young to know or too old to remember doesn’t make for success and it doesn’t even rhyme.

*Immutables – this is a sensitive topic as it is easy to demagogue as insensitive or even bigoted. It is increasingly common for voters, some acting in the spirit of goodwill, to select candidates based on immutable qualities like gender, skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and tribal affiliation, rather than truly relevant qualifications. Not that top candidates cannot emerge from these groupings, they of course do, but drastically limiting choices this way is a losing strategy for securing the best available talent. This selection modality has the perverse effect of putting individuals in positions for which they are unprepared and ill equipped for success. An old joke shines a bit of light on this problem. When asked why things in his community were so chaotic, especially since talent seemed so abundant, the man replied, “because we always hire our cousins.”

*Incumbency – with incumbency comes advantages chief of which are monetary resources, name recognition and familiarity with the byzantine elective process. A process where seniority determines who gets assigned to prestigious committees and top leadership posts. This means mediocre senior lawmakers with safe districts can lavish campaign funds on securing the fidelity of fellow caucus members and blocking those of greater merit, capability, and vision. The incumbency process is not principally about merit or leadership, it is about accumulating and retaining power.

Citizens of virtue and good character are essential to the success of our republic and the preservation of liberty

*Inertia – what I mean by inertia is the tendency of voters and their spawn to act narrowly and consistently in a straight line. In simple terms it works like this, voters elect an unqualified person to office, the newly minted unqualified official then makes appointments of similarly unqualified persons who in turn hire unqualified employees. Over time, nary a qualified person is occupying any post or station critical to good governance. This may be the best explanation for why governments tend to fail when votes are cast with good intentions rather than for relevant merit. Inertia reminds me of the words of a former President who said, “the status quo is Latin for the mess we’re in.” And I would add, “the mess is deep and getting deeper.”

*Voters – poor candidates have enablers and a quick look in the vanity mirror will identify the culprit and he/she looks a whole bunch like you/me. How much time do we voters commit to a close examination of candidates on the ballot? On average, most voters do not even read the voter’s pamphlet, and many do little more than react to hollow slogans, immutable factors, or party affiliations – all poor predictors for success in public service. The Common Q implicates us all.

Let me close with the words of Founding father, James Madison, who argued that citizens of virtue and good character are essential to the success of our republic and the preservation of liberty. It follows then that such people are well informed and treat the voting franchise as perhaps their most sacred duty. It is time to step up, everything is at stake.