We have two job candidates for an important public-sector post.
One seems smart enough and did her homework while serving in prior positions, but never accomplished much of anything, kept an enemies list, seemed perpetually under investigation and tolerated sexism in the inner circle, groping of women and perhaps worse. In subordinates, she valued loyalty above competence, which may explain the mixed record in office.
A second job candidate has a flair for public relations and excels at pricking the egos of inflated politicos. Yet he’s accomplished even less than candidate No. 1, and is given to racist, sexist and just plain inaccurate rants bringing embarrassing publicity. He also has a reputation for reneging on business deals.
Each candidate made a fortune in capitalism, crony capitalism. Each sees the rule of law as for little people, not for them.
Given the facts, would you hire either of these individuals? If you did, what are the odds they would change, grow and excel in a bigger job than either ever had before? Given the prospects, why not just re-post the wanted ad to recruit more and better applicants from a broader pool?
Of course these job candidates are the two major party nominees for president. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the least popular presidential candidates since polling began, and for good reason. Someone needs to sell this election 2016 bumper sticker: “Unite the Nation — Impeach the Winner!”
By most measures, Trump is even worse than Clinton. While Clinton didn’t accomplish anything of note in her stint in the U.S. Senate, she also didn’t embarrass herself.
True, Secretary of State Clinton failed to develop any identifiable foreign policy doctrine for a nation at war, nor bother to explain why a nation so flawed as the United States is even worth fighting for. Yet the fault for that lies more with her boss President Obama than with Clinton, who seems to have offered sound advice a time or two.
Democrats are more united than Republicans, so one key difference between the two candidates is that while each considers themselves above the law and thus makes great impeachment bait, Clinton’s impeachment would divide the nation while Trump’s impeachment would unite it.
Republican members of Congress like Paul Ryan would eagerly join Democrats to dispatch the Donald. After a few months of a Trump presidency, most Americans would gladly say, “You’re fired!”
So in a nation of 300 million, are these two the best we could do for a job as important as president? Is there no third choice?
As it happens there is. A third job candidate is a likeable self-made millionaire, a real capitalist rather than the crony variety, a former popular two-term Republican governor of a mostly Democratic state who cut taxes, improved services and balanced the budget.
He was never nearly indicted. He never demonizes opponents. He appreciates that sometimes reasonable people will disagree. His understanding of the Constitution shows he knows he is running to be the American president, not Cuban caudillo.
The third job-seeker is former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate.
On those merits, Gov. Johnson has the most accomplished record and best temperament for president. If this were a civil service opening with merit hiring, Johnson would win on points. For the first time since Teddy Roosevelt’s 1912 race as a progressive, a third-party presidential candidate is the best qualified.
What does that say about our two major parties?
Robert Maranto ([email protected]) is the 21st Century Chair in Leadership at the University of Arkansas and has done extensive research on public personnel management. The opinions expressed here should not be taken to reflect those of his employer. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
