In my last post, I wondered about John Jay’s notion that a larger pool of of contestants (at a national versus local level) naturally leads to better leaders. I think it is worth examining two issues: (1) with what attributes do we rank national-level leaders; and (2) who or what (process) filters out such individuals?
The Constitution, for which Jay argued adoption, rules that you can be President if you are a natural born citizen, have resided here 14 years, and are 35–millions of folks could be President. What is the initial filter between those millions and the dozen or so that show up in the first CNN debate?
The initial filter likely contains various threads of an individual’s career, background, social contacts, and aspirations. Most people never seek the Presidency, and that is likely the most significant sieve; but, it is a somewhat artificial sieve, in that most people do not consider the Presidency because it is considered to be in some other career-potential realm. It simply does not arise as an option (though it Constitutionally, if not realistically, is. On that point, I wonder how earnest the Constitution’s eligibility clause is…was it imagined that there would be, as Jay’s argument supposes, a national pool of contestants; or is there an unspoken weeding out?)
