Country Thinker What Makes a Candidate “Qualified” for Office?

Last Saturday was the first airing of Libertarian Politics Radio Hour, which I am co-hosting with fellow Ohio Libertarian Matt Erickson. In the second half of the program we interviewed “small-i” independent Senate candidate from Ohio, Scott Rupert. I had spoken with him for about an hour on Friday, and one of the issues we discussed during both my conversation and the interview was what constitutes the necessary qualifications for office. Mr. Rupert is a truck driver, which most definitely is not a typical background for a Senator.

So what sort of background do we expect from candidates for office?

Is it academic pedigree? While the Republican presidential campaign was still up in the air (at least nominally), I overheard a conversation at the Village Inn, which is a bar and grill in the college village of Gambier, Ohio. The conversants mocked Mitt Romney for having failed out of Stanford (although they ignored his joint degree in business and law from Harvard), they gave Rick Santorum some credit for graduating from law school (although they mocked his law school as being inadequate), and they admired Newt Gingrich for being a history professor. President Obama was the best, they concluded, because he had a bachelor’s degree from Columbia, and a law degree from Harvard.

I interrupted their conversation and explained Gary Johnson’s background. I told them that he put himself through the University of New Mexico by working as a handyman and graduated with a Bachelor’s of Science in Political Science. After graduation he built his business from a one-man operation into one of the largest construction companies in New Mexico with over a thousand employees, and then went on to be a highly successful two-term Governor.

Did you say “a Bachelor’s degree from a public university?” An automatic disqualifier, they concluded.

I could not disagree with these individuals more. Like Governor Johnson, I worked throughout college. For the last two years I worked in HVAC full time during the day, and finished my history degree at night. I continued working in the trade until I began to develop arthritis in my knees. Eventually I went to law school and graduated summa cum laude from the University of Miami School of Law, and then worked for 2-1/2 years at the prestigious international firm White & Case.

So for the folks at the VI, my law degree would probably qualify me to be president. But as I told Scott Rupert on the phone last Friday, it would be my experience in HVAC, not my law degree or my experience as an attorney that I would tout if I were to run for president or any other office, because it was during those years that I learned both how to work, and how the world works. Those who look to academic pedigree, in my opinion, are looking for the wrong qualifications.

What about political experience? For higher offices such as president and Senator, the conventional wisdom is that candidates must have a lengthy political resume. While a candidate, Barack Obama was accused of having insufficient “experience” because he only served for eight years in the Illinois Senate and four in the U.S. Senate. Sarah Palin was considered unqualified because she “only” had a Bachelor’s degree in Communications from the University of Idaho, and had “only” served on the Wasilla City Council, served as mayor of Wasilla for two terms, and as Governor of Alaska for two years. (Have you noticed that no one questions Mitt Romney’s short—and unsuccessful—political resume? No wonder; the liberal media establishment is in love with the guy.)

Well, as I said in both in my conversation with Mr. Rupert, as well as on the air, I think political experience should count against a candidate! The reason should be obvious. Most candidates run on a major Party ticket. Doing so gives a candidate access to the funding, advising, strategizing, and all of the other amenities that come with being a Republicrat of either flavor.

Then, in office, it is the newly-elected official’s duty to be a bobblehead to the Party establishment, just as the supposedly-rebellious Tea Party candidates in the House are to John Boehner. (Justin Amash from Michigan is a notable exception.) Once the Party has concluded that a politician has no political will, he or she will be allowed to climb the ladder. And when the establishment says that it’s okay, you may seek higher office. With very few exceptions, extensive political experience means the candidate has sold their soul; not exactly what voters really want from a candidate.

Ultimately the idea that extensive political experience is necessary for higher office is a myth perpetrated by the Big Two parties and their media allies to help ensure their continued political dominance.

What about vocation? Outside of political experience (or lack thereof) do specific vocations provide qualification for office? Scott Rupert is a truck driver. Does that disqualify him from being a Senator?

There was a day when military experience alone was considered sufficient to be president. Think Dwight D. Eisenhower, who held only one political office in his life. Those days are long gone.

Mitt Romney is touting his experience at Bain Capital (while playing down his failed Governorship), while Gary Johnson is touting his two terms as Governor, as well as his success at building a large company from the ground up. Are these helpful qualifications?

Many people consider law to be a helpful background, and indeed lawyers are far more numerous in politics than any other profession. (As I’ve said before, the Democratic Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the legal industry.) But as I suggested earlier I don’t personally consider a law background as being particularly helpful for an elected official. Law may make someone a better politician, or perhaps a legislative aid, but without some other sort of life experience, practicing as an attorney alone is not a useful background. (Note that the Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate Judge Jim Gray is an attorney, but his experience on the bench gives him a vastly different skill set than the average attorney.)

So does being a truck driver give a Senate candidate the requisite experience to be Senator? Consider that Al Franken is in the Senate—and is a rare exception to the rule of political experience for a higher office such as the one he holds.

For what it’s worth, I think being a truck driver is probably a more beneficial experience than a comedian (Franken), a lawyer (countless examples), an actor (Reagan), or community rabble-rouser (Obama).

So what sort of qualifications do we look for in a candidate? I’ve already stated that I don’t think academic pedigree is necessary, and that political experience (at least too much of it) counts as a negative. I also don’t think that law is a good preparatory career for elected office, and I would be more likely to consider a blue collar candidate than most people would.

I have a clear, articulable answer to my question that I will withhold because I’m more interested in what the rest of you think, because if we address this question more thoroughly we can begin selecting candidates who will actually represent us.

End Note

Senator Sherrod Brown, one of Mr. Rupert’s opponents, is popular with his party because he’s a bobblehead for Harry Reid. The Republican nominee, Josh Mandel, is poised to be the same vís-a-vís Mitch McConnell.

Indeed, Mandel’s nomination is a perfect example of how little say rank-and-file Republicans have in choosing their candidates (Richard Mourdock is a refreshing exception). Mr. Rupert took part in a Senate debate before the Ohio primary, and every Republican candidate but one showed up—Josh Mandel. He didn’t need to; the Republican establishment had already chosen him. They put their resources behind him and Mandel was an easy winner.

I don’t want to get into all the details, but Mandel is the classic example of a dirty campaigner. His campaign for Treasurer was so dirty that the Cleveland Plain Dealer nominated the Libertarian Party candidate Matthew Cantrell—a rare major paper endorsement for a third party candidate. In the current campaign Mandel’s strategy is the same as Sherrod Brown’s, which is tell voters how awful the other candidate is. I can safely tell you that I would not vote for either for any elected office.

By contrast, Rupert’s campaign is to tell voters what he stands for and what he would like to do if elected. Because my party did not run a Senate candidate I would like to thank Mr. Rupert for giving me someone to vote for, or else I would have skipped the U.S. Senate portion of November’s ballot. He’s not likely to win, but I will wake up with a clear conscience on Wednesday November 7th.

This article is also published at The Country Thinker.