I read with interest comments of a fellow contributor on the fact that there is no requirement for experience, intelligence or honesty when a political candidate presents himself of herself for election. "The lack of measurable qualifications for such office creates an uphill battle for the electorate," the letter said.
This is correct, but in a democratic system how could such evaluations take place? The best that the voter can do is look at past form, but that is no guarantee of success. The fact that we continue to support inadequate individuals for political office is certainly worthy of study, in company with instances where the candidate has already shown a total inability to behave in a manner that we would expect from others who are not political candidates.
What can be done to improve our judgment?
Well, we could stop believing everything that candidates say, even when they tend to say what we may wish to hear. We could take a closer look at who they really are rather then simply accepting the professionally-created image presented as an honest profile.
Many voters are subject to charm and charisma. However, we should try to look beyond this as we would do if asked to put our money into some shady venture. It's excusable to be fooled once, but twice is a sure sign that we are not taking politics seriously or, worse, don't care. Yet we still complain when things don't turn out the way we wish.
Hilton Head Island