Qualifying, But Not Qualified

This day after Super-Tuesday, the internet and news sources are a-buzz with speculation as to who the next Republican candidate for president might be. These assessments often associate the amassing of delegate votes with qualification for the job in question. But aside from delegate votes, what else can we learn from the primary process? Well, for one, we can learn something about the voters themselves. We can also, without reference to public opinion, learn very practical things about the candidates--things that, surprisingly, scarcely enter the discourse. One of these things: actual fitness of the candidates for their positions. Are they organized? Are they responsible? Can they prioritize? Can they choose proper staff? With whom do they choose to surround themselves?

In the last 24 hours, some interesting facts have emerged. These observations primarily concern Rick Santorum. So far, we have learned--apart from his ludicrous right-wing situation on the political spectrum--is not organized, or responsible, cannot prioritize, or staff appropriately. And, in spite of these shortcomings, will not surround himself with people who can compensate for them. Evidence? His neglect even to get himself on several of the Ohio ballots. This, one would think, would be quite at the top of any candidate's to-do list. His failure to do so is disturbing enough, but far from the most disturbing.

What I find to be the most discomfiting thing about this, is his amazing success in the primaries. What are people looking for in a president? Certainly, an effective president would not be so neglectful of essential tasks. Yet this obvious shortcomings seemed to have little effect on people's decision to vote for him--even if it had a tremendous effect on who could vote for him: citizens in 18 delegates' worth of districts. What's more, it demonstrates his inability--or unwillingness--to learn from his mistakes. One would hope that after failing to get on the Virginia ballot, he would make a habit of double checking. Apparently not. Interesting. What does this say about the voters? They're more interested in who does the job than the success with which he might do it. How did contributors to his campaign--who may have lost their candidate on the basis of his own negligence--feel about it? Did they change their minds about his readiness? Again: apparently not. How Santorum conducted his campaign seems to have had little effect on how voters perceive his ability to do the job. That is disheartening to me, as a citizen.

His defenders might stipulate that, as president, he will have plenty of people at his command to look out for such things--such not-so-minute details of his tenure. But is the fact that his hand-picked campaign staff were so inept at their job that they forgot to get their candidate--someone whose job it is to secure votes on the ballot at all? Still other defenders might celebrate his ability to gain so many votes despite his ineligibility make it onto the ballot in numerous congressional districts (even, in fact, in the district in which he gave his "victory speech" last night). These are the people that Rick Santorum has decided are the best suited to serve him. If president, will he chose similarly ill-adept individuals to serve us? Apparently, a large part of the country believes this possibility to be irrelevant to his capacity to serve the country as president--commander in chief. I am not one of these people. And frankly, this leaves me quite distressed not only over the state of our potential leadership, but over the state of our citizenry--their common sense, their commitment to good government, their practicality in general.

The lessons drawn from this, I argue, show more about his voters than about him. They too, are irresponsible. And yet each one of them has an ability to influence the selection of one of the next candidates for president.