What Qualifications Actually Matter For The Presidency?
The answer will shock you.
Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president. This is an objective fact that a disturbing number of Americans have ignored. However, he is technically qualified for the job, as he’s at least 35 years old (more than twice that age in fact) and was born in the United States. Perhaps the Constitution should have required a little more — maybe a written test that’s more demanding than identifying camels and televisions. Who knows how many lives might’ve been saved if presidential candidates had to successfully parallel park?
The Constitution is silent on any additional qualifications beyond the two mentioned. However, that hasn’t stopped Democrats at least from describing various candidates, especially the ones who lost, as exceptionally qualified. During an interview where she reaffirmed her belief that a woman could win the presidency, Nancy Pelosi said, “I think Hillary Clinton was the most qualified person of that generation. More qualified than her husband, more qualified than George W. Bush, more qualified than Barack Obama. They all admit it. Bush doesn’t, but the others, they admit that.” (Watch below.)
I’m not a fan of George W. Bush, but I can understand why he doesn’t “admit” that Hillary Clinton was more qualified than he was to serve as president. (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have their own reasons for false modesty regarding their relative qualifications.)
When Hillary Clinton first ran for president, she was in her second term as New York senator and had just seven years of experience in elected office. This made her less qualified than past nominees John Kerry (two years as Massachusetts lieutenant governor and 19 years in the Senate) and Al Gore (eight years in the House, eight years in the Senate, and eight years as vice president).
Even if you give Clinton credit for her unelected role as First Lady, that arguably made her less qualified, as past successful Democratic nominees were Washington “outsiders” (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama). Lyndon B. Johnson had extensive Senate experience but only became president because John F. Kennedy was assassinated.
Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were all governors when they ran for president, and some have argued that previous executive experience is a better indicator of success in the presidency. A governor has to prepare for and manage national disasters, as well as engage with the federal government and the state legislature. A swing state governor will more likely have contended with a legislature that’s controlled by the opposite party and is hostile to their agenda.
However, former Democratic Sen. Eugene McCarthy argued that a presidential candidate’s “experience” as a governor was overrated. In a 1988 New Republic article, McCarthy ruled out every possible presidential candidate based on their supposed credentials. My fellow Dark Shadows fan Acilius wrote the following in a 2019 post about McCarthy’s article and the upcoming Democratic primary:
Nonetheless, I’ve spent a fair bit of time these last 30 years thinking about McCarthy’s lists. The first list rules out prospective candidates on the basis of the jobs they’ve held. Among them are “governors and former governors, unless they have had experience with the federal government, either before or after their governorships.” Governors-turned-presidents come into office thinking that “they can handle the Pentagon… because they have reorganized a state highway department.” Also excluded are vice presidents and former vice presidents, not only because vice presidents are usually chosen for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to assume the top job, but also because service as vice president is a demoralizing experience that “is likely to weaken and confuse character.”
Hillary Clinton had added four years as secretary of state to her resume when she ran again in 2016, but voters that year ranked the economy and terrorism as more important issues for them than foreign policy. Of course, Clinton was better suited to address those issues — really any issue — than Trump, but that has more to do with her overall mental stability than professional credentials.
Pelosi said that Clinton was more qualified than “the creature that is there now. (She doesn’t like speaking Donald Trump’s actual name. He once sent a mob to kill her, so she’s allowed to hold a grudge.) However, she’s referring to personal fitness rather than qualifications because as impossible as it is to believe, Trump was already the president before he ran again in 2024. Even in 2016, Trump specifically based his candidacy on his “outsider” status and private sector experience. Gullible voters believed this qualified him to run the country like a business — even though he had an established record of running his own businesses into bankruptcy.
Certain Democrats are obsessed with qualifications and credentials, but politics is more like show business than people want to recognize. There are very “qualified” actors out there who never land roles. It’s not about what’s “fair.” Juilliard-trained classical actors have lost major roles to rappers or someone with movie star looks who a casting director spotted while dog walking. Back in 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon was more “qualified” than Sen. John F. Kennedy, but he lacked Kennedy’s charisma and magnetism. (Watch historical footage below.)
It’s been obvious for a long while that as a hiring committee, the U.S. electorate is not that concerned with objective “qualifications” and “credentials.” Democrats will simultaneously boast about the qualifications of candidates who either lost to “less qualified” opponents or, in Biden’s case, crashed and burned in their only term. Many Democrats complain that voters seemingly don’t appreciate “qualifications” and “credentials,” yet they simultaneously insist that expanded and easier voting access will help preserve democracy. We’ve all seen those interviews with undecided swing state voters that make Idiocracy look like a documentary. If we’re honest about the U.S. electorate, we must accept the reality that the most important qualification — perhaps the only one that matters — is the skill necessary to convince people to get elected. Trump has been called a “con man.” Obama was dismissed as a “celebrity.” They both won the presidency.
Gullible voters believed this qualified him to run the country like a business — even though he had an established record of running his own businesses into bankruptcy.
This is the thing that gets me. The man bankrupted casinos! How bad at business do you have to be to bankrupt a fucking casino? I know, he pulled a mob move and sucked it dry and left it to rot but damn people, that's even worse. The electorate is not using their critical thinking skills, oh right, they don't have any thanks to education being chipped away at since the 80's. Thanks Reagan, you fucking ghoul.
Hmmmm. Sounds like you are saying that expanding the franchise to the 90 million eligible voters that do not bother to cast a ballot, will only further enable the installation of charismatic autocrats by voters who do not care about anything beyond intangible "charisma" - i.e. who is media platformed to tell and amplify the best lies. I'm just suggesting here that gullibility of and lying to the electorate are not the only issues here - "maybe" there are also structural issues with Citizens United-driven "extreme funding" and the now clear dependence of the financial well-being of ultrawealthy individuals on both governmental largesse (privatization) and neglect (deregulation). Oh, and lest we forget the racist relic of the Electoral College - that needs to go, too.