I
already had thoughts about choosing politicians
(April 2014) - but they were
Canadian and the thoughts were somewhat
dominated by municipal politics and
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford. Ford died of cancer on
March 23rd prompting eulogies
and a "positive" picture of his municipal role
that runs counter to
my advice about politicians and how we approach
them.
I am convinced that we need to put on another
hat and another mindset for an
election as compared to our run of the mill
approaches. We need to imagine we
are suddenly a big boss in a big company doing a
job interview for an important
position. If our boss role is applied to our
voting for public office we have a
better chance of turning off our film star
fiction mode and of choosing people
who are 1. honest and 2. qualified for a big
job.
Some of the same issues that arose around Rob
Ford have arisen in the U.S. in
the far more serious context of voting for a
U.S. Presidential candidate. You
might laugh and say it is their business. Yet
the lives and work (or lack of
it) of many in Canada and in a whole lot of
other countries will be deeply
affected by the outcome of the U.S. election.
Democracy includes the right of the people
affected by the decisions that are
to be made to have a say in them and so in who
makes them. By this wider
democracy yardstick this is an election where
many of us US-outsiders should
have a say. What non-U.S. people think about
candidates and Presidents should
matter more than it does. And the U.S. needs to
be aware that what is thought
outside the U.S. about the U.S. and its
President has a bigger impact and a
permanent legacy. Let me explain a bit.
During my now-annual retreat to Mexico for the
month of January I had a
difficult discussion with a Republican Party
supporter who told me Obama was bad
from his earliest days when he reneged on some
promise or other to supply some
weapons or other to Poland. This is a decision
for which I am thankful given
Poland's new government. No doubt Obama will be
judged to have made mistakes.
But what needs to be said is that what a few
Republicans in the US think about
Obama doesn't matter. The world is far bigger.
There are more of us outside the
U.S. And the world had already given a Nobel
Peace Prize to Obama. Much of the
developed world has taken a national health care
system as normal for half a
century, so his accomplishment in establishing
health care is a no-brainer for
most of us outside. His legacy in the wider
world is secure.
Legacy is one thing we outsiders can deal with.
What can the rest of the world
do about who gets elected in the first place -
say Trump? You might say we get
vexation without representation (and also of
course we get the policy after
effects). So I'm returning to my thoughts
on politicians and our Canadian
Ford case.
I
sympathize with the views on Trump ascribed to
the "republican
establishment" that came from the lips of Mitt
Romney. My writing about
Toronto's mayor Ford in 2014 was in quite
similar vein ... and still applies
despite Ford's death. It's all about hiring
someone for an important job who is
1. honest and 2. qualified.
I
said then, "Ford is a person who was elected
Mayor of Toronto by using a
folksy approach like that of the US Tea Party
and a simplistic slogan “stopping
the gravy train” which sounded plausible but
never really touched down to any
reality. At
the same time, he lacked
evidence of any credentials for the job, and was
known not to have skills at
cooperation or mediation. And
he had a
worrisome record of escaping conviction for
driving with marijuana and impaired
driving in Florida. For me, that made not voting
for him a clear enough
choice."
Trump, like Ford, is the creation of inherited
wealth - not innate ability or
hard work - and Trump's credentials include the
use of the bankruptcy laws to
leave others in the wider society holding the
bag for financial mistakes while
he held onto his private acquisitions - things
like houses and yachts. While
even Ford had been a Councillor and so had
experience of the functioning of the
City Council, Trump has no experience at all in
any elected office - not in the
Senate, in the House or as a State Governor or
even a State representative.
Normally, I can complain about politicians being
beholden to those who finance
them and I can question who the financiers are -
bankers or unions. But Trump
is accountable to nobody. I find that
particularly frightening.
I
said about Ford in 2014: "Supporters still like
his direct folksy style
and his current simple slogan to the effect of
saving people money. Ford is a
good example of the kind of politician I don’t
need to have around – and, I
venture to suggest, nor does Toronto." Trump has
a similar populist appeal
and I don't like to see him around.
It
may
be acceptable to put up with unproductive
attention-getting behaviour to
elect the best pop star of the year, but I
implore US voters to see the
Presidential election differently. As I said
earlier: "Can we get into a
different mindset for a city election than the
one we use to watch a soap opera
or a teen idol? Sympathy is appropriate for
ineptitude in a good drama or a
soap opera. Anger is the appropriate response to
ineptitude in those seeking
public office."
So
I
repeat. When people vote, can they remind
themselves that voting is like
hiring the person best qualified for an
important job? This is the big chance
for every little person to play the role of the
big boss hiring someone. Being
the representative of the US is an important and
responsible job that many of
the rest of us rely on. This is the commander in
chief of the world's biggest
armed forces who is being chosen. It needs
integrity and competence and the
right qualifications. The person has to be able
to work with other world
leaders - not please a particular crowd of
Americans. So for elections, we all
need to tell each other to throw a switch - turn
on our reasoning mind - and
think about qualifications for an important job.
We should make an election
involve more than feelings and crowd pleasing.
So let's think about that and Trump. Is there
evidence of the skills and
abilities needed? Wandering speculations around
Mexican illegals that fan
public misconceptions and that fan anger in the
leadership of Mexico - an ally
of the U.S. - are not evidence of the kind of
ability we should be looking for.
Worse, some have gone so far as to say they will
vote for Trump and are not
worried by him because they don't believe he
will do the stranger things he
proposes. That turns the notion of serious
choice on it's head. You should not
vote because you believe the person is not what
they claim to be and will not
do what they say they will. How can you hire
someone who you believe is not
telling you the truth about what they will do?
The bottom line in the hiring
approach is being sure there is some honesty and
some integrity in the
candidate. If they don't make the grade on
honesty and integrity then they
cannot be trusted to work with the Senate or the
House or to negotiate foreign
treaties. Any other skills really don't matter
without the basics.
Then, is the candidate just telling us that we
have problems or also telling us
how he or she sees a way through that is
believable? I don't want a candidate
willing to play on people's honest fears about
their chance for getting jobs
and to play with people's normal fears about
foreign immigrants in order to get
elected. Blaming one group to respond to the
fears of another divides the body
of people one is supposed to serve. It does not
honestly and seriously address
the fears of anyone.
I want a candidate that will tell it like it
really is - and then will say what
they bring to this messy world and give
suggestions of what can be done. The
suggestions from a candidate have to be better
than credible. I want evidence
that these suggestions link to the candidate’s
past productive work and are
supported by some of the best thinking around to
ensure it's not just talk and
that it's realistic. Trump doesn't get near to a
vote under my approach of
hiring for a responsible job.
Today’s world needs leaders who have integrity
and ability and experience. It
needs people who will consider the views of all
of us whose lives or work will
be affected by their decisions - even if in the
end they have to do what is
best for the U.S. Any doctrine, slogan or
formula - or theatricals - must be
secondary when we choose someone for an
important job - like the chief
representative of our people to the world. Throw
the switch - turn on the
thinking mind.