In an election where most people are openly dissatisfied with the entire slate of candidates (third-party included), most people explain their selection in terms of what they don’t like about the other options:

“I’m voting for Trump because I don’t trust crooked Hillary.”

or:

“I’m voting for Hillary because Donald is a racist/misogynist buffoon.”

Others are basing their choice on what their chosen candidate represents:

“I’m voting for Hillary because she’s a woman, and I want my daughter to know she can be anything she wants to be.”

or:

“I’m voting for Trump because he’s an outsider, and he’ll get to Washington and shake things up.”

I’m guilty of giving voice to these same sentiments myself. Lately though, I have begun to approach this differently. I have decided to take a step back and treat the election by what it is in its simplest terms – a job interview. Remove all the pomp, circumstance and round-the-clock media coverage, and that’s all it is.

With that in mind, let’s evaluate this as we would if we were hiring someone for a job. No more, no less.

First, we would start defining a job description. Good news for us, we can crib this straight out of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which I will summarize (perhaps a bit clumsily) below for reference:

• Head of State (symbolic leader of the country, representative to the world at-large)
• Chief Executive (appoints federal officials, grants pardons and executes the laws)
• Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces (directs our military forces)
• Diplomat (empowered to negotiate treaties with other countries)
• Legislator (signs or vetoes legislation, federal budget and can introduce a legislation)
• Politician (the President is the chief of their political party)

With these responsibilities in mind, we should begin sifting through the resumes submitted for relevant experience and decide who to bring in for an interview. Here are some highlights of each that I culled from Wikipedia – feel free to dig deeper yourself by clicking the links below:

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

• Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, Wellesley College
• Juris Doctor, Yale University School of Law
• Staff/Volunteer for numerous state and national campaigns
• Attorney/Child Advocate, non-profits and private law firms
• Chair of the Board, Legal Services Corporation
• First Lady, State of Arkansas
• Boardmember (TCBY, Wal-Mart, Lafarge)
• First Lady, United States of America
• U.S. Senator, State of New York
• Secretary of State, United States
• Member, Clinton Foundation

 

DONALD J. TRUMP

• Attended New York Military Academy
  • Achieved rank of captain
• Bachelor of Science in Economics, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania (first two years were completed at Fordham University)
• Real Estate Agent, Elizabeth Trump & Son
• President, The Trump Organization
• Owner, Miss Universe, Miss Teen USA and Miss USA
• Executive Producer & Host, The Apprentice
• Founder, Donald J. Trump Foundation
• Net Worth: $9.5 Billion (estimated)

On paper, you would be hard pressed to find someone that is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be considered for the job of U.S. President. Not surprising, she has likely been gunning for this her entire life.

Trump, on the other hand, certainly has an impressive resume, but it isn’t specifically relevant to the job. It’s kind of like hiring a world-class fighter pilot to be executive chef of your new restaurant. He says he can cook, but how do I know that?

Based on my original premise, the U.S. Presidency as a job interview, I’m not sure how Trump even gets through the door. The problem is that we don’t handle nominations as we would hiring for any other job. Instead, we rely on a series of local popularity contests, delegates and conventions that all run by different rules. In fact, this process has more in common with a beauty pageant or a reality show than it does with a job interview. As a result, it is not surprising that Trump figured out a way to out-maneuver the field of traditional candidates.

So we don’t get to choose from the best resumes. We are in the unenviable position of having to fill a job as if these are the only two candidates that applied.

In a normal hiring scenario, you bring the best candidates in for an interview to dig deeper and gather more information. Well, we have no shortage of information to review based on three televised debates and endless coverage from news organizations and “news” organizations. As in any job interview, as the interviewer, you have to determine which information is relevant and irrelevant, trustworthy and suspect. You will weigh the pros and cons of each candidate:

CLINTON

Pros

• Lots of relevant experience.
• Seems more presidential.
• Has detailed plans.

Cons

• “Washington Insider” – more of the same.
• Questionable ties to Wall Street.
• Lots of scandals/investigations – but is it smoke but no fire?
• Can we trust her?
• Too liberal!!

TRUMP

Pros

• An outsider.
• Tough negotiator.
• Business Experience – knows how to get the economy going
• Strong on border security.

Cons

• Loose cannon/unpredictable
• Either racist/misogynist or careless with words/out of touch.
• Shady business practices.
• No relevant experience.
• Lacks detailed plans.

There are also some wildcard elements that cannot be overlooked:

Clinton – The endless scandals are concerning. Either she is completely innocent and simply under siege by political opponents, or she is calculating and slick enough to continuously come out the other side in tact.

Trump – At various points during the campaign, both the GOP at-large and his own vice president have had to back away from him. This is akin to having a reference listed on your resume who can’t find anything positive to say about you.

At the end of the day, for me, I question Trump’s capacity to do the job. His strongest attribute is that he is a rich, successful businessman. To date, his actual wealth is unknown, and even if we allow for the estimates he has provided, is that really a qualification? If it is, wouldn’t that mean that a slightly richer candidate would be more qualified and therefore a better candidate? Would Trump make a decision as Commander-In-Chief that was in the country’s best interest if it was contrary to the interests of his business holdings? Nothing he has shown to date indicates that he is capable of acting beyond his own self-interests.

As a result, I cannot recommend Mr. Trump for this position. If we need to make a hiring decision today, I would make an offer to Hillary Clinton.

That said, I would really like the opportunity to reconsider other applicants in four years.