One only needs to look over the list of two dozen or so Democrats who are considering running for president in 2020 to come to one simple conclusion – most of these possible candidates aren’t qualified to be president.
First of all, this idea that a young telegenic candidate with minimal experience in holding an elected office can be an effective president is absurd. We should have learned our lesson by now that presidents who don’t understand how the government works and how our two-party political structure affects just about everything will not be successful unless and until they figure this out, and who knows how long this could take/ It makes sense that any serious candidate for president should have been a representative, a senator, and possibly a cabinet member so that they could acquire the type of experience that could serve as a solid foundation for their presidency.
Second of all, this idea that a candidate with a limited focus on a few issues can be an effective president is, simply put, wrong. Not only does an effective president have to have command of many domestic issues, but must also have command of many foreign issues as well. And having command means more than just issue knowledge, but it means having an understanding as to how all of these issues interrelate with one another. A wide range of understanding allows historical perspective, and would hopefully lead to a cohesive philosophy of governance and a clear direction and sense of purpose.
Third of all, this idea that the time has come for a special minority-type candidate to be president just because there has never been one of that group before is ridiculous. Any candidate who makes their ethniticity, race, sex, sexual orientation, faith, or other identifier a significant part of their candidacy alienates way too many people. We need the best candidate possible, not the most politically correct candidate. We need a candidate who we can all believe will represent all of us without bias.
Fourth of all, this idea that toughness is not a requirement to be president is dangerous. The world is full of angry, frustrated, aggressive people who do not have our best interests at heart. Appeasement, avoidance of confrontation, sacrifice – these types of responses to problems are weak-minded and ineffectual. The ability to stand firm and clear-headed in the face of a challenge or a threat is critical to being able to make the right decision under pressure. How can a candidate who has never experienced failure or learned to perserver in the face of difficulties and disappointments develop the toughness needed to be an effective president?
Finally, this idea that being progressive is a desirable label is problematic. Being progressive means making things better. But at the same time, being conservative means valuing what is still good and useful. All too often this progressive label is turned into a perjorative by people who are looking for an easy way to dismiss candidates that they may otherwise find worthwhile listening to. Conservative-leaning candidates receive the same treatment as well, although being conservative does not seem to be seen in as negative a light as is being progressive. Any candidate that prides themselves on being the most progressive does so at their own political peril.
Toughness tempered with empathy, experience tempered with an understanding of reality, that is what is needed. But it doesn’t look like that is what we will get.