Treat Candidates Like Job Applicants

“Only those who had thought about issues rationally and deeply should be let near a vote,” Socrates contended, adding that voting “requires a skill and wisdom.”

He feared majority rule could lead to misinformed voting resulting in a demagogue, a “type of political leader who relies on prejudices, false promises, and charisma to manipulate voters into choosing them.”

So how do we separate the demagogue from the capable candidate? How do we separate “… the significant from the trivial” as we are reminded by Carr and Littman in “Excellence in Government.”

We can start by reflecting on the questions asked of candidates. In "The Lost Art of Cross-examination” by J.W. Ehrlich we learn that “… the form of a question has some effect on the truth of the reply.” And “A leading or suggestive question is one that suggests to the witness the answer the examiner desires.”

Then we can look beyond the words in their answers. Chris Lowery in "Heroic Leadership" informs us that “Paralysis and incoherent lurching — indicate the same underlying problems: lack of core values and principles.”

Do candidates’ answers to questions fulfill the requirements of having a good business plan or an executive job interview? Do they show they are capable with clear strategies?

Is their vision utopian cliches with “Artificial Propaganda” or based in “the real world” reality? Is there a record of achievement rather than just responsibilities? Are the candidates answers consistent with their past record and statements?

Are their accomplishments “significant or trivial?” Are they relying on “prejudices, false promises, and charisma” or “skill and wisdom?” Are there quantifiable specifics? Do answers reveal the “character of honesty” or the “gibberish of hypocrisy.”

In “Reflections on the Revolution in France” the great 18^th century political philosopher Edmund Burke observed “Their tongue betrays them. Their language is in the patois of fraud; in the cant and gibberish of hypocrisy.” Is there, as Ehrlich questions, a “Statement made … that is inconsistent” with previous statements, voting records, or actions?

Admiral James Stavridis’s observations on the character of Naval Leaders in “Sailing True North” tells us that a “crucial element in the development of character is honesty – being truthful, no matter the cost.” He also reflects that “…any vision has to survive contact with the real world.”

Jerry Harvey provides insight into voting consequences with just the title of his book: “How come every time I get stabbed in the back my fingerprints are on the knife?”

In “Writing Business Plans That Get Results” Michael O’Donnell provides us with a blueprint of substance our candidates should be planning:

• [B]e prepared to show why you are capable.
• [S]how that you are fully aware of the competitive forces at work.
• Summarize the significant goals that you and your venture have already reached. Describe how you attained them and what you learned in the process. Discuss what needs to be done and what must happen for you to be successful.

“Rights of Passage” by John Lucht on executive job-changing provides us with insight into job interviews we should all be asking during our observations of political candidates:

• [W]hat you have achieved when you held those responsibilities.
• Everyone has been given responsibility. Only a special few … have given back anything really substantial in the way of achievement.
• [What programs have you] conceived, planned and strategically implemented.
• [Pinpoint] problems and opportunities you identified? The strategies you came up with? And the results you achieved?
• [Provide] selling points of experience and achievement clearly in mind, with specific figures stapled into your memory.

In a few years as we look at the actions of our politicians and we take account of our own vote; will we be asking “How come every time I get stabbed in the back are my fingerprints are on the knife?”

The preceding column is the opinion of the author and is not the opinion of the U.S. Navy or the U.S. government.

John M. DeMaggio retired after 30 years of service as a Captain from the U.S. Naval Reserve Intelligence Program. He holds a Bachelor's of Science in Forensic Science from John Jay College and a Master's of Science from Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University. Privately consulting in counterterrorism, forensic science, and investigations, he also conducts international counterterrorism training, having retired as a Special Agent in Charge and serving as Co-chairman, Investigative Support and Forensic Subgroup, TSWG, developing interagency counterterrorism technology. He is also an Op-Ed contributor for The Hill. He previously published "Mitigation of Terrorist Effects on Victims' Motivation" in U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Center Colloquium. Read John M. DeMaggio's Reports — More Here.