Re-Arranged

So I was thinking, if the Presidency is so important why can anyone be eligible? Instead of leaning on the media to provide qualifications to the populous, lets rethink the whole thing.

The Romans had a cursus honorum that dictated who could run for what office and when. It wasn't always strictly adhered to, but was meant to serve as a sort of career path for the upper class men. As a teenager and 20-something you were a military tribune, then at 30 you could stand for quaestor, 35 aedile, then 40 for praetor and consul. The idea was that you needed the experience and understanding of the lower office in order to be effective at the higher office. There were practical reasons, as well: yearly elections and a Senatorial class that offered too few offices for far too many adult men.

Now these offices don't translate to the US, obviously, but we can learn from their lessons. Currently the US suffers from a bloated political class that focuses on ideology, not effectiveness, talking points and blame games, not governance.

What if we instituted an American cursus honorum? What would it look like? Would it be good or bad? Let's find out...

Age 18: Voting rights, military service (optional, of course, this is a free society), local office

Age 20+: State legislature

Age 25: US House of Representatives

Age 30: US Senate, State Governor

Age 35: President, Vice President

Age 40: Supreme Court Justice

The idea would be that you would work yourself up through the ranks of the political class until you hit the state or federal ceiling at age 30. I'm not convinced there should be definitive distinctions between the lower levels, but I am intrigued by the idea that in order to be President of the United States you must first have been a state governor.

But Fred, shouldn't Senators be allowed to run for President too? No. This may sound heretical, but if there's one part of the government that needs to be disbanded, or at least heavily altered, it's the Senate. It has way too much power, the tenures of Senators are way too long, and it no longer serves its original purpose: representing the states at the Federal level. (Yes, that's me saying the 17th Amendment is wrong.)

Anyway, just imagine how different the political scene would look if you had to be a governor before running for President?

Obviously, the past few presidents were all governors: Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Dubya. HW Bush wasn't, but as he was the imperator of the New World Order he gets a pass.

But lets look back at 2008. No more McCain, Obama, Biden, or Hilldog. The Democratic nomination would have been between Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, and Evan Bayh. The Republican would be between Huckabee, Romney, and Gilmore. (What up, President Romney...)

Now lets look at 2012: No more Herman Cain, Bachmann, Newt, Santorum, or Dr. Paul. Right now, the GOP nomination would be between Pawlenty, Romney, Perry, Johnson and Huntsman. Really, wouldn't that be better? Five successful governors jockeying for the right to govern the nation? Maybe in this alternate reality Chris Christie and Haley Barbour would join in, as well. Wouldn't we all rather watch that debate?