05-18-2018 12:27:15 PM -0700
05-17-2018 08:38:50 AM -0700
05-11-2018 07:34:04 AM -0700
05-09-2018 10:17:16 AM -0700
05-04-2018 02:59:17 PM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

A Modest Proposal for Training Future Presidents

Someone who has led another nation could run point by point on all the duties you'd expect a U.S. president to perform and show how he excelled at handling that already at a smaller scale. And it's not like there are a small number of foreign leaders to pick from. Scientists estimate that there are nearly two hundred countries in the world, and almost all of them have a leader of some sort.

So am I saying we should elect a foreign leader as our president? No, of course not. That's insane. Also, if you were paying attention earlier, foreign leaders all happen to not meet our very lax qualifications for being president by being from other countries. Plus, if they're child emperors, they're out on two counts. But what if we got other countries to let Americans who want to one day be president of the U.S. to try leading them first? Then we'd have Americans with the exact experience necessary for leading the most powerful nation on Earth.

Would other nations go for this arrangement? They'd be fools not to. It's been like a hundred years since any nation has come even close to rivaling the U.S. of A., so obviously those whom other countries have been making their leaders haven't been cutting it. Plus, everyone keeps saying how the American presidency is the most important job in the world, so why wouldn't they want to contribute to our process of picking the person who fills that seat? Plus they know the people we send will do their absolute best, since they're trying out for the top spot. Even if those people don't go on to become the American president, it still could improve our relations with other countries and help us with other problems. Why, if we got someone to turn Mexico into a paradise, there goes our illegal immigration problem.

It just makes sense for everyone involved, but if other nations are stubborn and don't see it that way, I remind you that America can be very charismatic when it wants to be. Iraq and Afghanistan weren't so hot on us invading them when it first came up, but they seem relatively okay with it now. We just have to tell other countries we're going to send our highly motivated people to run them, and if they do a bad job and screw everything up, we'll send more foreign aid. It's win-win.

Yes, I know, sending Americans to run other countries is going to get called "imperialism," but that's kinda becoming a tired line these days. Invading a nation that attacked us is "imperialism." Overthrowing a murderous dictator is "imperialism." Building a giant, planet-destroying space station is "imperialism." Fine. Whatever. There are worse things than imperialism. And when you're trying to find the right person to lead the most powerful nation in the world, if a little imperialism is what we need, then so be it.

And that's what it comes down to: We can take a common-sense approach to finding the right person to lead the United States of America by forcing other countries to take our politicians as their leaders, or we can use the same broken system we've always used, rolling the dice every four years on an unknown quantity to be in charge of our nuclear arsenal because he seems like a nice guy. Well, if he's so nice, what exactly does he want all those weapons for?