Art of Conservatism---Pre-Requisites for Governing? Why not?

March 29, 2016

Here's a Universal Truth that maybe you readers haven't seen put into words before: The more responsible a job position is, the more training that it requires in order for the holder to be effective at holding it. Most everyone who has held a job within the private sector will understand this, and most will agree. What executive worth his salt doesn't know his company's business inside out, or at least how to lead it?

 

That belief is not nearly so universally held in the area of government. And that, I believe, is how and why this country has been going wrong.

Outside of age, what are the qualifications to become a United States President? Congressman? Senator? State Legislator? A governor? A judge? Not much. Hardly any, actually. 

Of all those representatives of the three branches of government at the two levels of government in this country, only the judiciary has a tacit requirement that those who sit as judges have a goodly knowledge of the Constitution and/or laws with which they are to render their judgments. That's because almost all of them come to the bench as member of the Bar.

The only eligibility requirement to hold office in the other two branches of government at either the Federal or State level, is that candidates for those offices must convince the majority of voters that they have the competency to do it. When the electorate often doesn't know what it takes to be a competent legislator, governor, or President, it comes across to the above-average observer like a recipe for disaster.

There, that should pretty well explain it.

So, how does one train to be 'one of the above'? For quite a few years, many thought that being a lawyer was an adequate prerequisite for the job of governing. But being a lawyer is a career in itself, with many specialties, and not necessarily adequate training to govern. Besides, We The People have had to learn the hard way that the most often-seen outcome of lawyers in charge, is the creation of legislation favoring lawyers. In Illinois, for instance, lawyers who are headed to court are absolved of all speeding tickets.

For extra credit, see what other instances of such laws you can find for your state.

Besides, it is my considered opinion that those who create the laws which we all must obey must be taken from many, many areas of expertise, so that the common sense situations which govern the various endeavors of life may have voice in the legislative process. Yes, there are always 'expert witnesses' testifying for and against particular points of view, but they don't get to vote on the legislation thus created.

Here's my point (aka idea): I believe that all candidates for public office at both the State and Federal levels, at minimum, must be adequately trained and tested in the 'ins and outs' of the State and the Federal Constitutions, not only as to what is written on the page, but also why these documents are written as they are. The purpose of this is not only to make sure that potential legislators and executives understand, but that they have an appreciation for the means by which the various Constitutions, state and Federal, are created, not only to provide support for it, but to see to proper Amendments. Such test scores would be made a part of the public record, and if the prospective candidate so desired, he or she could re-take the battery of tests to improve their scores.

Where would prospective legislators and executives go to learn the Constitution, and to be tested for their knowledge and skill in this area? 

At the Federal Level, the Heritage Foundation is the first obvious choice, since it is not politically active for or against candidates---it exists only to support the Federal Constitution, and the history and process of how it came to be. Other entities would be schools of higher learning such as Hillsdale College, or Grove City College. Other such schools exist, I'm sure, and would make good resources for such training. At the State Level, institutions of higher learning, both public and private, could be enlisted to provide resources for the various state Constitutions. A good learning experience would be to compare and contrast the various State Constitutions, to glean from all the best ideas.

Here's an example from my limited experience: Were I to become a member of the Illinois General Assembly, I would make it a priority to amend the Illinois Constitution in the area of pension protection for State workers. I wouldn't remove the provision---I'm married to a County Government employee, who is covered under that state constitutional provision---but I would change it to remove pensions from the collective bargaining process, and replace that with a provision giving individual employees the power to self-direct their pensions into IRA's, at their own risk, while prohibiting the legislative process from touching any funds associated with it. That's just one idea. 

 

Does this sound like a Conservative idea? Yes, since the entire thrust of this idea is to make the United States Constitution, and its state level counterparts, the core of the legislative and executive process at both of the higher levels of government. After all, the core belief of Conservatism is the adherence to the Constitution. And, the more you know about the Constitution and the (temporary) job of being a Legislator or Executive, the better Conservatism looks.

Requiring all State and Federal members of the Executive and Legislative Branches to know and understand those documents is the key to adhering to them in their work. Otherwise, what we get are a bunch of charlatans whose only credentials are how to make themselves rich at the public trough, and create laws from which they will be more than willing to exempt themselves.

We can do better.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.