“Strategery” to Elect Future “Deciders”


January 8, 2009 by Ron Madson

In less than two weeks we will have a new President of the United States. Hope springs eternal. Refreshingly, by all indications Obama has read books, written one, and demonstrated the ability for deliberative thought. I personally did not vote for Obama (nor McCain) but I am guardedly optimistic that he will address issues such as the Israeli/Palestine conflict, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the torture issue with intellectually honesty, but more importantly a genuine Christian ethos. We will see.

In the meantime, I know it is four years before we have to consider a new “decider in chief” but I would like to introduce years in advance a new “strategery” to elect our future presidents. The thought that the “Wasilia Wonder” was only one heart beat away from becoming the commander of our military empire gave me some panic attacks. Here is my modest suggestion to prevent such an event in the future of our great republic.

If you are reading this you are not an “LIV.” Pollsters describe LIVs (short for “low information voters) as the 60% of the United States voting population that tends to be relatively uneducated, rarely subscribes to newspapers or news magazines, and does not watch any cable news. This is the same group that often takes a peculiar pride in avoiding book knowledge and world geography —but they still vote. It is not that LIVs are stupid but rather they have habits and patterns of living that allow them to remain verifiably ignorant of history, politics and basic civic lessons and thus they are easily manipulated by fear, hatred, confusion and the whole array of slogans, labels, and logical fallacies. Neither of our two major national parties should smugly assume that it is the other party that the LIVs affiliate with for one does not need statistics to observe that both of the major national parties contribute significantly to this host of voters.

But is it the LIVs that should be the focus of our concerns and fears? And could we really attempt to educate 75 million Americans who vote fifteen times in one night for their favorite American Idol but maybe only half the time every four years for the President of the most powerful country in the world? No, even Hercules would rather clean a thousand Augean stables than take on such a task. But we need not despair. There is a much, much smaller group that we can target. For it is not the LIVs that should be the focus of our concern but rather the LICs—“Low Information Candidates” that should keep us awake at 3 A.M. If we could successfully screen out or even create an exit “strategory” for LICs then we need not concern ourselves as to whether an LIC could attract the votes of the LIVs. Is it audacious to have such a hope? Is that possible to do so? Has it been done? Has it been successful? Yes, yes, yes and yes!

More than two millennia ago during the Han Dynasty, Chinese historians observed that for centuries rulers of China found their way to the highest public offices based on such things as hereditary, wealth, charisma, and “who you knew.” Unfortunately, these factors did not guarantee competence for the genius of one ruler did not guarantee that his son was much more than a high functioning moron. So the Chinese came up with a novel idea—a national system of examinations for those seeking public office. Those seeking public office whether rich or poor, connected or not connected, would begin a study of history, Confucian classics, poetry, analytical writing, logic, political science, geography and moral philosophy. Once they passed they received certification that they were at least eligible for public office. The program worked so well in producing able public servants that it was retained by China for 1,300 years.

So I would humbly float an idea. Since the Chinese are about to own a good portion of our nation that has been run by non-examined public servants maybe we could try a national exam for all that seek public office. Every person seeking any federal office (Congress, Postmaster General, and even our President) would have to take a federal public servant exam after reading certain mandatory works that would include the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and then two dozen of Western Civilization finest classics—anyone reading this paper I am sure could come up with a list. Those that pass would get a Certificate or “Seal of Approval” that would then allow them to go out and demagogue all they want to get votes from all the LIVs that they can attract—the exercise being of real no harm given we can at least rest assured that the candidate is not an LIC.

If all of our candidates are pre-approved by rigorous examination(s) then when they have a gaffe here or there as we all do, then we would really have no reason to be concerned. However, as it is now when a candidate for our highest office tells us that as President they are the “decider” for all branches of the government or that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs then we might have some reason to pause and consider that without a national exam a day may come when an LIC might convince the LIVs to give him/her the nuclear codes and the chief “decider” position. Through exams we screen surgeons, dentists, judges, and even everyone at airports. The screening does not mean we will then choose the particular candidate but only that they have passed some minimum bar of intelligence and knowledge—the other attributes we can leave up to negative advertising to ferret out. However, given the reality that LIVs are now an identifiable voting majority, we need to put in a place a national exam before they discover their power and confuse the 2012 election with a beauty pageant without the mandatory questions.

Ron Madson, November 12, 2008

5 thoughts on ““Strategery” to Elect Future “Deciders”

  1. Grégoire says:

    Those that pass would get a Certificate or “Seal of Approval” that would then allow them to go out and demagogue all they want to get votes from all the LIVs that they can attract—the exercise being of real no harm given we can at least rest assured that the candidate is not an LIC.

    What a great idea.

    In the U.S. there’s what’s called an electoral college. It’s a slightly different concept but it theoretically serves the same purpose. Plato first came up with the concept (election by the best).

    Canada has a Governor General to the same supposed ends — she’s the lady who suspended parliament last year on her own authority. She can also fire the PM and become the de-facto dictator while replacing the government.

    The very existence of GWB and SH suggest that neither of these concepts go far enough.

    The fruits of any society are, to some extent, encoded at the level of structure. Anyone thinking that Barack Obama is a Che Guevara/George Washington type who is going to solve all our problems has a rude awakening in store. The political leaders don’t really have enough power to actually effect the sort of meaningful changes humanity needs. The entire system needs to be re-worked.

    Just my opinion.

  2. Bart says:

    Hmmm – I like this idea. My one concern is that in order for this to be implemented we would have to acquire the support of the very people least likely to pass. As many grade school english students should be able to tell us, pro is the opposite of con. As a result, I consider Congress to be the opposite of Progress in many respects 😀

  3. Ron Madson says:

    I agree, Greg and Bart, that this suggestion while fun to entertain is impractical. It is just that I would hope that someone who has control over the military has read Howard Zinn or someone who promotes economic policy has read and considered the Grapes of Wrath as well as Smith’s Wealth of Nations.

    I do agree that we are in for rude awakening in reference to Obama, but for me that primary power that the president exercises is that of his war powers and control of intelligence that leads or prevents war. I do hope Barak would surprise us and adopt and much more modest approach to international conflicts.

  4. J. Madson says:


    my problem with Plato is that he argues for some aristocracy. election by the best is the mentality that allowed people to disenfranchise poor, uneducated, and blacks.

    election of the best certainly would be ideal and while a certain level of intellectual depth would be nice it does not guarantee a level of moral depth. educated people can be just as or at times even greater dangers than a c-student from yale. although recent history might argue with me.

    what is so frustrating to me is that our govt was designed to protect against low information candidates. Where were the checks and balances, accountability, etc recently? The DOJ turned a blind eye, attorneys made up fantastical excuses for illegal actions by the presidency, the medical profession helped design torture, congress couldnt remember what the rule of law looked like.

    Im not sure how to fix it but as you said the system needs some kind of change

  5. Grégoire says:

    Dear J.,

    I agree with everything you’ve written. I think that Plato’s idea was a definite step up from what existed when he first dreamt it up (oligarchy/monarchy) but I think it’d be a step back today.

    I guess if I were to dream up the ideal scenario, it’d be a world society in which everyone was by necessity educated to the level that they’d pass the national exam.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 256 other followers



%d bloggers like this: