Hiring a POTUS

POTUS POSTING/Image:Michael Moffa

“The popular will or desire is usually the last consideration that influences the average delegate.”—“The Average Political Delegate”, New York Times, September 8, 1879

Construed as the office, rather than as the man, “The President of the United States” can be viewed as another job to fill, albeit a special one. Hence, like any other job, seen as a job to be filled on behalf of a client, the task of recruiting a POTUS is worth examining from the standpoint and standards of the professional recruiter community—with the proviso that the client is “we, the people”.

For, surely, given the general thoroughness, intelligence and integrity of the job recruitment vetting process and recruiters, the consequences of turning over the selection of candidates for the office of the president of the United States to recruiters could be quite positive.

Having recruiters, rather than delegates and deal-makers, choose the candidates may define an innovative form of presidential candidate selection—a sophisticated, thorough, rigorous, intelligent, ethical, democratic and fair alternative to the traditional methods of cash-flush lobbyist-influenced support, self-serving back-room deal making, grueling and expensive primaries, cliché-driven campaigns, all too frequent mud-slinging, frivolous convention hoopla, stupefying convention delegate partying and simplistic candidate sound bites.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Merely from a statistical standpoint, having America’s professional recruiters decide who shall be the next POTUS makes good sense, since, according to one estimate, 1 in 20 of the more than 20 million  LinkedIn professional profiles is a recruiter’s. That’s representative democracy. Moreover, the U.S. Government Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010-2011 hiring data i ndicate that there are at least 207,900 employment, recruitment, and placement specialists in America.  Compare that with the comparatively paltry 4, 419 delegates at the 2008 Democratic national conventions and the even more minuscule 2,348 delegates who participated on the Republican side. Clearly, the odds of getting a truly representative result by utilizing the far more numerous recruiters instead of delegates seem higher.

Here’s another statistical indicator of how truly representative the recruiter community would be: Consider the fact that presidential election polls normally sample no more than 1,500 voters nationwide. The accuracy of such polls is often so amazing that, reportedly, when he was told by his chief poll adviser how far he was trailing in the final poll before the 1980 election, Jimmy Carter wept. Imagine the statistical reliability of a “poll” and vote of 207,900 recruiters.

Recruiter Delegate Qualifications

Setting aside their sheer numbers, the predictable argument that professional recruiters represent too narrow a demographic, professional and socio-economic base needs to be addressed: First, regarding an alleged professional narrowness, the rebuttal is simple. If recruiters represent too narrow a base in virtue of having as their own jobs the job of selecting candidates, the argument applies with even greater force to the traditional population of convention delegates, who, in addition to having exactly the same job to do—namely, selecting candidates—are, by comparison with professional recruiters and in absolute terms, amateurs, part-timers and less experienced than the average recruiter. The fact that delegates will have paying jobs in addition to the ad hoc delegate “job” is neither a special qualification nor disqualification, since, politically speaking, (lawful) employment history is constitutionally or procedurally irrelevant to the exercise of any citizen’s voting and representation rights.

Second, each professional recruiter is virtually just as certain as is any conventional delegate to be a full U.S. citizen, in terms of rights, privileges and obligations inherent in citizenship. This means each recruiter meets the legal requirements for being a selector. Moreover, every recruiter, as a private citizen and like every delegate, has a rich and varied life; has been screened for and entrusted with the vital task of candidate screening, selection and nomination; and, in particular, possesses—to a degree surpassed by no one and surpassing virtually all—the judgment, insight, prudence, ethics and objectivity required for the task.

Third, it may be argued that because recruiters are preoccupied with their day jobs, they will not be as well-informed of the backdrop political, economic, social and other issues that frame the presidential nominee selection process. To this is can be replied, “Do you seriously imagine that no delegates to the 2008 conventions had jobs that were equally ‘distracting’?”—which, of course, is a question separate from whether they still have those jobs, given the current gloomy economic climate.

Fourth, as for excessive socio-economic homogeneity of recruiters as a class, that’s a debatable claim, given that they represent at least two sub-classes—those who are well-off and those who are still struggling to become well-off. In all probability, the average recruiter’s income is not markedly different from that of the average convention delegate. Besides, if socio-economic disparities, especially of wealth, were germane to selection or disqualification of either potential delegates or candidates, many, if not most Senators would be forced to survive on their senatorial incomes alone.

Recruiter as Conventional Convention Delegate

As for other requirements for being a conventon delegate, these are easily met by the average recruiter. For example, and allowing for variation from state to state regarding some of the other specifics, a Democrat delegate must meet the following conditions specified in the Democratic National Committee Delegate Selection Rules:

• “..all delegates and alternates at any level of the delegate selection process must be bona fide Democrats who have the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States at heart, who subscribe to the substance, intent and principles of the Charter and the Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, and who will participate in the Convention in good faith.”
• “Delegates elected to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall, in all good conscience, reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”

This latter rule suggests an intriguing, yet minimally innovative possibility: Choose recruiters as conventional national convention delegates. Instead of replacing the existing delegate system with a recruiter-based nominating process, merely nominate recruiters as delegates. This is an ideal system, because recruiters represent the only citizens and professionals whose day job as private citizens is to select other citizens for high and important posts. It doesn’t get better than that.

Because no one is more qualified to be entrusted with this important, solemn duty and none is likely to execute it as well, you, as a recruiter, should consider being nominated or nominating another recruiter as a delegate for the 2012 presidential election.

Alternatively, you could consider a run for the presidency yourself.

If you can handle the prospect of 330 million clients making colliding, impossible demands for at least four years.