During the past month, I've spent a lot of time trying to sort the political wheat from the chaff. It amazed me how difficult it was to pin down the facts regarding who had done what and when, or what each candidate intended to do in the future. Although this year's campaign seems to have relied a bit less on "mud slinging," I still heard more about what the other candidates would do in the defender's place.
I found myself thinking that campaigns should be based more on the idea of a job interview. After all..isn't that what they really are? Aren't the candidates bidding from extended contracts, and supposedly hired by the people?
When you interview for a job, your employer is interested in your talents and qualifications. He/she could care less about your opinion of the other applicants. Can you imagine being asked "What do you think you can offer our company," and answering with something like "I can offer more than the person you saw before me. He has radical friends, and inferior training?"
Somehow, I don't think you would get the job. You might even ruin your chances of getting any work at all. You would no doubt be told that you were not a "team player," a quality that is considered most important in regard to getting things done efficiently within large groups of people.
Yet we accept behavior like this from our candidates, even to the extent of basing our "hiring" decisions on the negative opinions of others voiced by those we interview.
Shouldn't they also be required to stick only to facts regarding their own qualifications, and not those of their opposition? Federal Government is a gigantic organization, requiring intensive cooperation and compromise between many highly varied individuals. Isn't it more important than usual that these men and women show a "team player" spirit?
Or am I just being too naive?
Denise Ruiz
Editor - Seeker Magazine