The New York Times, with some degree of seriousness, is asking the question whether candidates for office, particularly the presidency, should be required to take a civics test to demonstrate their basic knowledge of the issues surrounding the office they seek.
The embarrassing flubs by Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann in the Republican presidential campaign prompted the inquiry. The Times asked a few politically astute people from various points on the political spectrum to comment.
Here are links to some of the responses:
Linda Chavez, former Reagan official
Raw intelligence, or even specific knowledge about policy and current events, doesn’t guarantee good judgment. Voters generally want someone who shares their values.
Flies in the Face of History
A qualifying examination for elective office is far removed from the philosophy of the framers, who rejected all but the most basic qualifications, and far from constitutional.
Give Them a Pop Quiz!
If Cain read Anita Hill’s autobiography, if Bachmann took a gay studies course, if Romney spent the night with the Occupiers, if Obama visited a prison, the next election would be something to look forward to.
Who Tests the Testers?
The only thing worse than electing an unqualified candidate would be empowering someone to decide who is qualified.
The fifth commentary was offered by Norm Ornstein, a prominent Washington centrist from the American Enterprise Institute.
Here’s a slice of Ornstein’s column:
“… Campaigns are like extended job interviews. At least for those running for visible, higher offices, the combination of debates, journalists’ questions, opposition advertising and the pressure that comes with campaigning give a pretty good window into the qualities, including basic knowledge, that candidates have. And voters can judge whether those qualities, which may include limited intellect, limited intellectual curiosity, or basic ignorance, outweigh other things — which may include simply wanting to throw the other rascals out.
“I am generally content with this balance, but with two giant caveats. The first is that the choice of candidates is not any longer in the hands of the larger mass of voters, but in those of the ideological activists who dominate primaries and caucuses. So we are getting more extreme candidates opposing each other in general elections.
“… Second, the campaigns we face in the future, thanks in considerable measure to the reckless and destructive Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court and the fecklessness of the Federal Election Commission, will make it harder for voters to judge the qualities and knowledge of candidates. Huge money buys from outside groups and candidates’ ‘super PACs’ will enable mediocrities to avoid any scrutiny, running campaigns based on ads, and with outside attack ads defining candidates before they can define themselves.”
You can read the entire Ornstein piece here.
