What's the PLAN, Ma'am?

After the general election of 2016, many felt that the new Democrat majority in the House of Representatives needed Nancy Pelosi's expert guidance and leadership. I basically agreed with that assessment, and felt that those new congresspersons who ran on ‘not voting for her as Speaker’ were in dangerous territory in terms of separating themselves from the one who would hold control over committee assignments and other forms of  assistance that could be made available to them and their districts. Recently, I have begun to see some flaws in that assessment, but continue to believe that the new Dems would be caught in a maze if they didn't have Ms. Pelosi at the helm.

Without going into detail about that, let me concentrate on one issue: the lack of a comprehensive Democratic Plan for informing and educating those who voted for them (and those voters who did not vote for them). Why is it that Republicans seem to be able to win media attention on a daily basis while Democrats are either silent or ineffective in their presentations? How come Republicans continue to win in terms of promoting their 'brand?'

Contributing to my concern have been the following occurrences:

1. Almost complete silence from Dems on the package of Reform legislation known as HR 1

a.     what has happened since passage?

b.     what more can be done to move these reforms toward implementation?

c.     Why isn’t every progressive Democrat constantly talking, writing, texting, tweeting, blogging about those reforms?

d.     Why aren’t those reforms being touted and used to draw a definite contrast with Republican incompetence and neglect of such necessary changes?

e.     Why aren’t there Commissions and Task Forces and Think Tanks and expert Panels being formed to follow up on those reforms?

2.  More silence on the issue of Climate change and the package proposed by ‘AOC’

a.     How do we expect to educate the public as to what is in this package if no one is talking about its details?

b.     How come the leadership is not talking about the boundaries and deadlines we have to work with before we start losing our planet? – this is not optional!

c.      How come the dire consequences of Republican inaction are not talked about and pointed to every day and education of the public done on a regular basis by every congressional office?

d.     Why isn’t there a countdown to planetary disaster being shown somewhere every day?

e.     Why is the Green New Deal in hiding when most of its provisions should be brought before us every day?  Just because a Resolution didn't pass doesn't mean the problems have taken a vacation!

3. We are also met with a great silence on what individual Democratic representatives are doing to sponsor legislation related to issues and concerns in their own districts; what’s the big secret?

4.  And then, of course, we have the chairmen of investigative Committees trying their best to explain what they are up to, with minimal help from the leadership and membership

a. where is a comprehensive on-going report to the American public about what is being attempted in those Committees?

b.  about what is being accomplished and

c.  about what Trump is blocking, covering-up and stone-walling?

            I’m not talking here about reports just from individual committee chairs and members; I’m talking about planned reports and/or press conferences from leadership that indicate a strategy, a plan to work toward desired outcomes.  In such a context, what the fake President is doing would tend to come across for what it is:  obstruction and ignorance!

5.  Today, as I write, we are being confronted with Trump once again sticking it to Democrats over infrastructure.  Just before a scheduled meeting with King Donald, Speaker Pelosi came out of a caucus meeting, and declared to the Press that Trump is guilty of a ‘cover-up’ with a meeting looming in the WH in just 45 minutes about infrastructure.  Then, Trump used a Rose Garden lectern to tell his base (and other pawns) why he walked out of that scheduled meeting with Schumer and Pelosi: that he  cannot – and will not --work with Dems on infrastructure as long as investigations continue, and “cover-up” and the “I” word are being used by Democrats. 

Again, we had no context for why Democrats were meeting in Caucus; no explanation of what the infrastructure meeting was about in terms of agenda; and apparently no publicized plan for what Democrats were trying to accomplish with either meeting. And yet, we learned later from Schumer that the Dems had a lengthy infrastructure proposal ready for Trump (while Trump had nothing to offer).  Why didn’t we get the word about the Dem plan – is it a secret as well?  Have the Leaders ever heard about ‘promotion’ which is used to grab attention?  Instead of getting out ahead, the leadership ended up inadequately reacting to the rantings of a spoiled narcissist by simply dropping their jaws!

Moreover, there does not appear to be a comprehensive Plan for dealing with the subject of IMPEACHMENT.  What the public gathers from a disjointed Dem message is that some want to move ahead; some want to gather facts; others want to win election in 2020 so they are (too?) cautious in everything they say and do.  Who knows what is happening since the Dems apparently have no Plan about how to get to that goal -- if it is a goal.

So again, I need to ask some questions:

            Why can’t Democrats get their act together and beat Trump to the punch with details, facts, real goals and solid strategies?  Dropping jaws and speaking haltingly to reporters in front of temporary microphones as one’s only reaction is not going to cut the mustard! 

            Why do Democrats seem to think the only way to inform and to educate the public is to answer reporter’s on-the-spot questions; hold impromptu news briefings following meetings; or leave it to representatives to explain everything to their constituents?

Does the Democratic Leadership not understand that the tweeting, the diversions, the sensationalistic occurrences, and the outrageous rallies held by this wannabe dictator are stealing the headlines, the articles, the cable news attention and the votes?  They’re losing ground to a clown who knows how to manipulate the news cycle and the emotions of the public.  And what do they do but act as though what has always been done in terms of messaging will suffice.   IT WON’T!  Because – as usual – you end up responding to Donald Trump and his antics, rather than directing new messages and a changed narrative to the voters and the public.

So here -- with apologies for not being even more detailed -- are some thoughts for Democrats who want to change this disastrous approach to communications and education of the public.

You can’t achieve much of anything without a Plan for doing so

Put together a detailed plan for dealing with Impeachment.  There seems to be little doubt that impeachment is an obligation, whether or not there is a trial in the Senate.  So, the question becomes two-fold:  how do Democrats get there, and how do they bring along a majority (or large plurality) of the public?  To take charge of the narrative, House Democrats must announce a stated goal, like:

§  “We intend to bring articles of impeachment against this President that will address the following charges under the broad category of violation of his oath of office “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States…”

o   He intentionally gave comfort and aid to an enemy state

o   He has tried in numerous instances to obstruct investigations and to undermine judicial and law enforcement proceedings

o   He has accepted gifts and emoluments from foreign sources

o   He has failed to protect the national security of this nation, and

o   He has abused the powers of his office and undermined certain aspects of our Constitution; to wit, the co-equal nature of the branches of government and the oversight responsibility of the Congress in relation to the Executive.

(Realizing that I have zero legal training, I would expect that the above could be expertly couched in appropriate legal language without appearing to be lawyer-speak!)

It is not enough to have a Plan just for the road to impeachment.  There must be a Plan for Educating the Public and bringing them to conclusions that will support that process. The aim, of course, is to change the narrative to one that abrogates the slogans of “witch hunt” a “do-over” “a corrupt bunch of investigators” to one that affirms the charges of wrong-doing outlined in the Mueller Report.

It has been my feeling all along that the House Democrats should combine several approaches in carrying out this Plan.

1.     Without over-emphasis on the Report, proceed to follow its outline of possible charges and hold designated hearings about designated topics (not just about people, but topics) before designated committees.  Plan hearings on that basis as Congress’s response (not a ‘do-over’ but appropriate response of oversight) to the Report they should have had delivered to them in its entirety in the first place.

2.     Continue to make immediate use of the Courts (or hefty penalties like fines) whenever obstruction or ignoring of a subpoena occurs.  (Delay is tantamount to acceptance of wrongdoing)

3.     Every major finding by a Committee should become the basis of a presidential censure and/or the basis of specific legislation aimed at bringing reform of abuses.  Use both procedures and use each of them to educate the public; i.e. “this legislation (or censure) represents our response to the undermining of our Constitution and of the honorable office of the President – here are the details…”

4.     Every major finding should also find its way into the House Judiciary Committee that will presumably be the initiators of impeachment charges (unless a Special Committee is appointed); that Committee must then clearly explain why each finding is pertinent to their inquiry.

5.     But finally, it has been my concern for some time now that the Democratic Party seems to believe that promotion and publicity are not as important as attending to issues, values and legislative remedies for society’s problems and needs.  SORRY FOLKS – WRONG AGAIN!

  

The Democratic Party needs another Plan, and this one is huge, because it has been so neglected.  We should expect the same result we got in 2016 if we don’t attend to this problem right away.  The aim, of course, is to get better at Message delivery, but that aim would need to be defined carefully and I certainly don’t have more than a few suggestions.  Others have the expertise and the answers, and a process of consultation and planning must be part of the Plan.  A few of my thoughts and suggestions for consideration follow:

1.     There needs to be a Commission of Experts in public communication to come up with a promotion Plan for Democrats, including training and techniques required of all staff and representatives

2.     There needs to be a Public Relations office available to the Speaker and the Leader

3.     Perhaps, Democrats need a Fox News-type Outlet (not a propaganda machine, of course, but a central outlet) dedicated to the aims and goals of the Democratic Party and an even broader group of Independents who may share some progressive views.  Some say that MSNBC is already close to that description, but there may need to be some refinements and understandings to make that a reality.  Just how far is MSNBC willing to go to be known as the Voice of the Democratic Party and Progressive Independents?  I’m not sure… Maybe we need a whole new and different entity, purchased and administered operationally by the Democratic Party? 

4.     The DNC has got to focus its mission and goals on what would be beneficial to this Plan. What is the aim of the DNC, other than to promote election of Democrats to office?  In April 2017, its new director, Tom Perez indicated: “The DNC must do a better job of communicating our message and be a meaningful partner with organizations, candidates and state parties in all 50 states and territories,” The organization has seemed to be taking on broader outputs, including closer ties with the grassroots.  That certainly ties into the need for promotion of ideas and activities and the need for education.  The DNC needs to be factored in as a grassroots outlet and inlet for promoting progressive ideas and activities.

5.     There needs to be some over-arching group responsible for getting out the Democratic message in an orderly, planned and disciplined fashion.  Politico reported on the formation of one such group in Ohio in 2017.  “In battleground Ohio, the state party formed a messaging working group after the election that included advertising and consumer marketing professionals in addition to party activists. They meet regularly to devise a new brand and narrative for Democrats in a state that President Donald Trump won easily after two consecutive victories by Barack Obama — an effort supplemented by the state party’s polling, focus groups and extensive individual interviews of voters who backed Trump after supporting Obama or who sat out 2016 altogether.”

6.     There also needs to be a group of experts versed in social media, who can oversee the necessity of utilization of that medium, perhaps issuing sample messages to users who can then tweet, blog and use other resources like Instagram to deliver a somewhat unified message about what progressive Democrats are up to at all levels.   

I do know that some of these entities already exist in one form or another.  But ask yourself: are they working together?  Are people aware of their purpose and activities?  Did they make a difference in 2016?  Can they make a bigger difference in 2020?

I’m simply asking:  we may have some structures and some people who are experts in the field of journalism and media, but are we winning the media war that is raging?  I don’t think so.  Are we coming up with new ways to communicate that catch the eyes and ears and emotions of different cohorts of people?  Not that I’m seeing.  Can we even divert the headlines away from Donald Trump for one day?  I have my doubts.

Speaker Pelosi needs to hear from grassroots progressives.  She needs to know that Democrats must:  

§  organize and plan in order to change the Trump narrative;

§   present a clear and positive message of strength and resolve, even though local messages may differ because of context; we need to make our message a principled New Deal, not a list of agreed-upon minutiae;

§  make sure reforms already presented do not take a back seat but are promoted in contrast to what Republicans neglect;

§  continue to investigate the alleged Crook in the Oval Office and not apologize or back away from it;

§  investigate and pursue articles of impeachment immediately in a context of response to the Mueller Report and initiate immediate concrete actions like censures and/or reform legislation to bring the public into the process. 

We Need Democratic Plans – for Impeachment, for Reform legislation, for Educating the Public, for Promotion of democratic values, for Saving our Planet.  NO MORE STALLING!  LET THE MESSAGE GO FORTH that the “I”s (“Ayes”) have it – that:

DEMOCRATS ARE COMMITTED TO INITIATING REFORMS, INSTITUTING NEW JOBS, INNOVATING NEW-AGE PROGRAMS, INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION, INFORMING the PEOPLE, and IMPEACHING this OBSTRUCTIONIST PRESIDENT!   

TIME To DIVE DEEPER: Qualifications & Duties Matter

As we post today, we are confronted with the 36^th school shooting of this year at the public charter STEM School Highland Park just seven miles from Columbine in Littleton, Colorado.  One young man was killed and 8 students injured, 3 of whom are still reported in intensive care.  The young man who was killed, Kendrick Castillo, 18 years old, a marine recruit just a few days from graduation, gave his life to save others, as he lunged at the gunman attempting to stop his horrific intent.  Once again, we stand in awe of the bravery of this young man (and of others who helped tackle the gunman), while we grieve deeply for the loss of his life.  Our hearts go out to Kendrick’s parents, and to the parents of those children injured, as well as to all those threatened and frightened by this tragic occurrence.     

==============================================================================================

In an opinion shared by many, we are at a juncture where the Congress must act decisively on matters that go to the heart of our form of government.  We have a person acting as President of the United States (with little if any, understanding of that Office) who is unwilling to confront a prime adversarial nation (Russia) regarding interference in our national elections of 2016 (and potentially again in 2020). Such wanton neglect could be termed a “dereliction of duty” and a violation of his oath to “protect and defend” our Constitution.   

Secondly, we are dealing with the so-called Executive of a whole branch of our government who utilizes the “Big Lie” as a tool for governing and for undoing the effect of laws, regulations, precedents and constitutional imperatives.  This fake President talks about the “de-construction” of the “deep state” (administrative bureaucracy) said to have a liberal bias, presumably because of career bureaucrat liberals deep inside this government’s structure.  In that pursuit, Trump has, more accurately, begun a thorough destruction of our form of government and of democratic values, including the rule of law.  Betrayed by his own words and actions, he aspires to be an authoritarian leader like his most admired dictators (like Putin (Russia), Jong un (N.Korea), Xi, (China), al-Assad (Syria), Erdogan (Turkey), el-Sisi (Egypt), and the royal family of Saudi Arabia -- all with their own unlimited powers. 

As though to epitomize it all, and to put a legal stamp upon de-construction, Attorney General William Barr appeared before Congress and demonstrated how lying, disseminating, falsifying and diverting facts can be used to undo the two-year investigation by a Special Counsel.  What rankles the most is the AG’s destruction of his role as the People’s Attorney within our Government.  He has effectively made himself a personal counsel (consiglieri?) of the president, answerable to him, covering for him, obstructing justice for him, stone-walling for him, and interpreting the laws and a credible investigation of him into something suspect as a ‘spying’ project by our leading investigative agencies.

The House of Representatives is making every attempt to address these matters within its current powers and structure.  Holding oversight committee hearings, issuing requests for documents and other evidentiary materials, today voting to put before the full House a motion of contempt.  This represents a step toward eventual impeachment proceedings, and looking at ways to balance the refusals and obstructions coming from the Trump  administration.  That activity, along with legislating the reforms of HR 1 and other legislative initiatives such as the Green New Deal, is also necessary and imperative if Congress is to carry-out its two primary responsibilities.

HOWEVER, it is not enough to deal just with the details of the issues-at-hand.  Yes, the

Mueller Report and its treatment by the WH and the AG must be subject to oversight.  But

oversight hearings must lead to substantive action.  And that action should be aimed at

fundamental flaws, gaps and glitches in our system. In other words, the Congress must

dive deeper into what may be contributing to our current constitutional crisis.  I hereby

submit the following illustrations and thoughts for your consideration.

 In my estimation, we must pay immediate attention to the qualifications, requirements,

duties and responsibilities, vetting and on-going evaluation and guided growth (training

perhaps) needed for every major appointive (and elective) position in the federal

government (the states need to follow suit).

Trump appointments, in most cases, have underlined the flaws in our system.  In too 

many cases, the only requirements used for vetting candidates for appointments were 

Trump’s thoughts and feelings, the willingness of his candidate to declare personal 

loyalty to him, and the commitment of the candidate to undertake de-construction of 

their departments to reflect Trump’s views and prejudices.

 Here’s what I mean, with thanks to www.justice.gov:

“The United States Attorney General (A.G.) is the chief lawyer of the Federal Government of the United States, head of the United States Department of Justice per 28 U.S.C. § 503 and oversees all governmental legal affairs.

Under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution, the officeholder is nominated by the President of the United States and appointed with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The U.S. Constitution provides that civil officers of the United States, which would include the U.S. Attorney General, may be impeached by Congress for treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. The United States Attorney General may be removed at will by the President of the United States under the Supreme Court decision Myers v. United States, which found that executive branch officials may be removed without the consent of any entity.”

“Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 which, among other things, established the Office of the Attorney General. The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments".^[6] The Department of Justice was established in 1870 to support the Attorneys General in the discharge of their responsibilities.

The Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Defense are generally regarded as the four most important Cabinet officials in the United States because of the significance and age of their respective departments.^[7]”

The only real qualification for becoming a Cabinet member is having the president make the appointment, followed by the approval of the Senate.

The mission of the Office of the Attorney General is to supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals Service, which are all within the Department of Justice.

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

• Represent the United States in legal matters. 
• Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department. 
• Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law. 
• Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals. 
• Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate. 
• Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order”

Despite all this, in order to be considered for appointment to the office of U.S. Attorney General, candidates need not:

·      be of a certain age

·      possess a law degree

·      have experience in court room procedures

·      have administrative or government experience

·      be possessed of a strong character or

·      have demonstrated an independence of mind and resolve

·      be familiar with the laws of the land”

He or she just needs to:

·      aspire to the office

·      be chosen by the President for appointment

·      be approved by the Senate

·      take an oath of office to “protect and defend the Constitution”

In stark contrast, YOU can’t even get a driver’s license without meeting the following requirements, i.e., you must:

·      be of a certain age

·      provide basic biographical information on an application

·      confirm your identity

·      pass a written examination about driving and rules governing same so that you can qualify to

·      take an actual driving test behind the wheel of a car with an examiner present to judge your competence with every step of the test, and, if all matters are judged affirmatively, a license to drive is issued

·      renew that license every few years according to state law

·      at a certain age, or under circumstances defined by state law and regulations, one could be asked to retake a driver test in order to continue being licensed

·      follow certain rules and laws that exist to protect the driver and other drivers, pedestrians and property; breaking those rules and laws (states impose their own limits to these infractions – some accumulate points) can lead to suspension or termination of one’s license.

The only protection provided for the people in terms of harmful or hurtful behavior and actions by the Attorney General is an impeachment process that is complicated and cumbersome, such that it prevents timely action on suspension, censure or actual dismissal.

In other words, it may be more difficult for you to meet the requirements for obtaining and maintaining a driver’s license than it is for judging the competence and qualifications of a candidate for the office of U.S. Attorney General.

One more thought:  Appointment of county Animal Control Officers (some formerly known as “dogcatchers”) may be more circumscribed with requirements and qualifications than for the position of USAG.

Here are a few of those requirements (they vary by state) as enumerated by www.careertrend.com

          “Animal control officers need a highly specialized skill set. According to the National Animal Control Association (NACA), ‘Animal control officers make four times the public contact of other law enforcement officers; ...’four times the contact equals four times the liability.’ Because of this liability, certified animal control officers have training in everything from animal care to public speaking to defensive driving.”

·      need to be at least 21 years old to be hired

·      although certification does not require a college degree, many animal control officers begin their careers by studying criminal justice, criminology or veterinary technology

·      many future Animal Control officers begin working in fields closely related to Animal Control: some become law enforcement officers, others work in veterinary clinics, animal shelters or other animal care facilities. The more experience, the more likely to be hired once certified

·      Attend the National Animal Control Association (NACA) level one training and certification -- classes require 5 days of study, 8 hours each-- focusing on a broad range of animal care, investigation and communication skills; also teaches basic skills like report writing, identifying animals, first aid, interview techniques and courtroom procedures.

·      attend the National Animal Control Association level two training and certification; level two builds upon the skill set acquired in level one, including trainings in capturing and restraining large animals, defensive driving and crime scene documentation

·      after completion of levels one and two, candidate receives training certificate

·      must still attend an advanced training held by the NACA

Granted, an animal control officer doesn’t have to meet strict education guidelines but look at the extra training that is often expected.  No similar concern for the USAG.  Some training provided ACOs includes responses to the public and courtroom procedures which would seem more appropriate for the current AG.

Let me stop right here to make a few necessary and sizeable points:

1.    We cannot expect top-notch people to be nominated for top positions in the federal government if we continue to allow such positions to be treated as of less importance than that of a county animal control officer;

2.    Nor can we expect independent thinking or resolve from those who are appointed by the President and it is him to whom they report

3.    Without clearly stated restrictions and responsibilities, and without strongly worded criteria against which a federal office-holder can be evaluated and held to account, we cannot expect responsible and effective actions and operations to be top priority

4.     Congress has oversight of the Executive branch, but that oversight means little or nothing if the Congress holds hearings but then does not act to correct underlying causes of incompetence or neglect, or take action against criminality when such is discovered

Here’s the deal, congressional Democrats:  keep rolling ahead with those Committee hearings; keep following the guidance of the Mueller Report; keep going after those like William Barr who refuse to comply or to do the job they are supposed to perform.

BUT, don’t stop there!  Your job is not just oversight.  Your primary job is to legislate!  There ought not to be one week go by without meaningful legislation that is aimed at resolving problems, addressing issues or reforming processes in order to deliver to the people the benefits, insurances, opportunities and justices they deserve under our form of government.

First Step:  review the positions of President and Vice President to make sure there is no question as to the requirements and responsibilities of each Office

Second Step:  every Department Director’s position should be examined and amended to make clear:

          *qualifications for the position

          *job description and job requirements

*criteria against which the director will be evaluated at least once-a-year

Third Step: every supervisory or administrative position in each Department should undergo the same scrutiny, under aegis of the Director, but undertaken by citizen commissions.  Congress should oversee each step by a date-sure for each.

If we are going to make this government work as it should, we must begin with deep dives beneath all the talk to deal with job qualifications, restrictions and responsibilities that make sense and that assure responsible behavior.  We can’t continue to allow neglect and misunderstanding, as well as obstruction, define the relations between the Legislative and Executive branches. 

Just in case you believe that this is not a wide-spread problem (i.e. government jobs ill-defined and candidates poorly vetted), let me quickly bring before you the qualifications and experience required of candidates for another major position, that of Justice on the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Justice: Written by J. Herby and Fact Checked by The Law Dictionary Staff)  

“While the Constitution stipulates qualifications for being President of the United States, it is silent as to qualifications for Supreme Court justices. There are no explicit requirements for a person to be nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age, education, job experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact, according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not even need to have a law degree.”

However, most Justices:

·      tend to begin their tenure while in their 40s or 50s and may remain with the court as long as they wish or until they are impeached for improper behavior

·      are personal acquaintances of the sitting President

·      overwhelming majority of them attended law school 

·      worked as a lawyer or served as a judge prior to their nomination

·      most of the Justices held public office before being confirmed

·      both past and present, attended either Harvard or Yale Law School. Many of the others were educated at Columbia, Northwestern, or another top tier law school.”

While these considerations about Candidates have emerged over the long history of the Court, they do not speak clearly to qualifications or requirements for doing this job.  Nor, do they spell out any criteria that should characterize and be met by all candidates for appointment.  A job description does not exist for this extremely important position.  And that may explain, probably more than anything else, why the appointment process of Brett Cavanaugh was such a  disastrous process – the guidelines, the process, the qualifications were all ill-defined, so that no one had any objective criteria or restrictions by which to fairly judge his ability to uphold the dignity and unbiased justice of the Court.  And so, this man of doubtful integrity is now an Associate Justice of the SCOTUS.

“Several political scientists and others have attempted to assemble a list of criteria that might define a good federal judge, more as an exercise of looking at the history of the court. American scholar Sheldon Goldman's list of eight criteria includes:

1.    Neutrality as to parties in litigation 

2.    Fair-mindedness 

3.    Being well-versed in the law

4.    The ability to think and write logically and lucidly 

5.    Personal integrity

6.    Good physical and mental health 

7.    Judicial temperament 

8.    Able to handle judicial power sensibly”

What is inexcusable is that there is an appalling lack of requirements, qualifications and adequate descriptions for many of the important positions in our government, including the directors of cabinet departments.  The truth is, way too much discretion for choosing appointees is left in the hands of the President of the United States, with an approval process, such as it is, conducted by the U.S. Senate. 

In my opinion -- in our complicated, technologically demanding and diverse societal circumstances -- this is a flawed process that is producing poorly qualified, inexperienced and too often corrupt office-holders at the most crucial levels of our government (in fact, many in this administration have been charged with crimes related to their appointed offices).

It is time to put in place comprehensive guidelines, qualifications, and perhaps high behavioral standards that must be met for major government offices, both elective and appointive.  Our guardrails have crumbled, our protections against incompetence, corruption and injustice in our government officials are outmoded and inadequate.  Along with the reforms of HR 1, fervent and immediate attention must be applied to qualifications and requirements of our officials. Equally important, we must attend to the process of thoroughly vetting candidates for both elective and appointive positions. 

We cannot continue subjective decision-making by a President (or any other Executive) to decide appointment to federal office, often of people who are not fit, qualified, ethical or independent from the corruption of power brokers, power-seekers and power abusers. We cannot afford, nor expect to survive the tyranny of incompetence and corruption that presently pervades our governmental officers and representatives.

In other words: we must make sure that the standards for candidates for governmental offices are strong, comprehensive and specific so that unqualified, unprepared, untrained, uneducated and unethical candidates are screened out at the beginning of the process.  By doing so, we can rightly hope that there would be fewer incidents of having to rid ourselves of unqualified and unprincipled office-holders after they are appointed or elected.

Yes, I recognize that there could be major problems with this approach:  it could become a process tainted by elitism, allowing only those of certain characteristics and backgrounds to be considered for these offices. It is necessary to address this in laws that make it illegal to set up criteria for offices that would on their face preclude women, minorities, certain nationalities, etc.   

This reform could also result in a process where a small group of plutocrats seize the process of writing criteria and qualifications, but that possibility can be nipped-in-the bud with Citizen Commissions trained in the process of preparing just and fair and appropriate criteria and qualifications for office-holders.  We can make it work, and we must.  Trump and his administrators, along with too many outrageous, obnoxious and unqualified (radical Right) Representatives in Congress, have demonstrated why we must take this deep dive to change the way we qualify and vet all potential candidates for governmental offices.