This is the first season of the FOX television series 24 that I have ever watched.
I can’t see how anyone could watch that show and not have at one of two things happen.
Either you are going to walk away from that show with a fresh understanding how important it is to get out to vote in presidential elections, or you are going to lose all faith in democracy.
There’s this fictional character on the show named President Logan that is the definition of a wimp. He is weak. He is supposed to be. It helps push along the plot.
But watching this show you can’t help but to think, how many people have we elected president only to find out after the fact that they weren’t qualified for the job?
And how do we determine that exactly? Do we say he was a bad president if the economy was bad during his term or because we lost a war? Maybe he was a bad president because gas prices went through the ceiling or that home ownership declined on his watch?
It is painfully clear on that show that President Logan is not qualified to be the president. But he was elected. He was chosen by the people.
That’s supposed to make it all better?
Does that put the onis on us? How were we supposed to know he was a pussy?
In America, because we get shoved down our throats since the first day of pre-school that we have the best system in the world, we erroneously interpret that “we have the best system in the world” to mean that we have the best system possible.
Saying we have the best system in the world could be just as much an indictment of the rest of the governments around world as it is a compliment to us.
What do “the people” look for when they are voting for a candidate for president?
Judging by how partisan most of us tend to be, we are primarily looking at his politics. How he falls on the issues that are important to us seems to be the overriding force behind whether or not he gets our vote.
Essentially we are voting on his opinion.
What I am talking about are not his opinions but his qualifications. Obviously Jack Bauer and the others down at the Office of Homeland Security, um, I mean CTU, are qualified to do their jobs, but they have to defer to the president far too often for my comfort level, as they probably should. There are hard decisions that the President has to make for both legal reason as well as accountability reasons. He is the boss. Bottom line.
But what qualifies him to be the Boss?
What credentials does this guy have that qualify him to hold that position?
That is where our system is flawed.
Republicans hand us their choice of whomever they believe is the most electable member of their party.
The Democrats do the same exact thing and then the rest of us spend the next several months arguing hypothetical situations.
This is the most important job in the land and we hire people by like that?
There isn’t a single job on Monster.com, Careerbuilder.com or Hotjobs where they are going to hire you strictly on hypotheticals.
”Well it says here that Bob has managerial experience. For the last four years he’s managed a Wendy’s Restaurant in Bloomington.”
”Let me get this straight, you actually think that managing a Wendy’s in Bloomington qualifies Bob to be the next CEO of our fortune 500, multi-national, gazillion dollar a year conglomerate corporation, George?”
”Well, Jim, he looks like he could be a CEO. You’ve got to give me that. He speaks well. I polled some of the people around the office and they feel he is trustworthy. I even saw that 57% of those in the office would trust him babysitting their child. And even if he isn’t the smartest tact in the box, I am sure he will pick highly qualified, competent people to be on his staff that will help him make those really tough decisions. I say we go with him.”
That is how we pick the leader of the free world.
How many President Logans have we really had in the oval office?
Why do you think historically the idea of having a King lasted so long? Electing a leader is a relatively new concept.
Human beings have had Kings for thousands of years, we have only been toying around with elected officials for the past 200.
When it comes right down to it, we don’t want a President. We all want a King.
The difference between a king and a president is training. Although the position was passed on through heredity, make no mistake about it, people were groomed for the position.
When they are elected, people automatically tag them with being smart, confident, strong, self-assured, knowledgeable and competent.
But what are they basing this on? The fact that you are pro-choice and so are they?
Why do we do that?
I believe its because deep down we want them to be king.
Kings were taught how to be leaders. They were taught how to make tough decisions. They are given the best education, the best training, sure they were a pain to deal with but do you think Bush isn't?
Presidents? What training do they have to be president? What qualifies George W. Bush to be commander-n-chief of the armed forces?
Kings often served in the military and were the veterans of dozens if not hundreds of battles where they actually kicked ass.
There are lots of die hard Democrats that would perfectly comfortable if Bill Clinton could’ve just been president until they day he died and then Hillary could take over.
The same goes for Ronald Reagan and sadly probably the same could be said for Dubya. There are people who would be more than comfortable with them serving as President of the United States for the rest of their lives.
24 scares me.
And it has nothing to do with nerve gas or terrorists.