Do you need a college degree to be President?

Scott Walker is a rising star in the Republican Party.  Walker formally announced his candidacy earlier this week, which was expected.  Most pundits agree that Walker will be a leading contender for the Republican nomination. 

 

 Walker is the 47 year old Governor of Wisconsin, where his main claim to fame was his introduction of a budget plan which limited the collective bargaining abilities of most Wisconsin public employees.  Walker faced a huge backlash in Wisconsin from it's public sector, including protests at the Wisconsin Capitol, and survived a recall.  This action, along with tight controls on spending and Walker's push for smaller government has made him a favorite amongst Republican Party Leaders.

 

Since 1993, he has run in 11 races for state legislature, county executive and governor — including the highly unusual recall election in 2012 — and he has won them all.

 

So what's missing on Walker's resume?  A college degree.

 Which brings us back to the original question; in this day and age, when most of us are expected to have a college degree, and most employers demand a degree at a minimum, should that requirement be expected for President's?

Walker attended Marquette University, but dropped out prior to his senior year to join the Red Cross.  A noble gesture for sure, but He never returned to finish.



 Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg, to name just a few, never completed degrees and went
on to run hugely complex and successful companies, and they seemed to turn out OK. Abraham Lincoln never finished his degree, and most people believe Abe was the greatest president.  However, most people expect the President to have that degree on his/her resume.

 If Walker were to win in 2016, he’d be the first president in more than 60 years without at least a bachelor’s degree.  The last President without a college degree was Harry Truman.  It's been more than three decades since the country has sent someone to the White House who didn't graduate from an Ivy League School.

While most political pundits are mixed on whether this will become a lingering issue, Walker quickly brushed off questions surrounding the lack of degree.

That’s the kind of elitist, government-knows-best, top-down approach we’ve had for years,” Mr. Walker told Fox News’s Megyn Kelly. “I’d rather have a fighter who’s proven he can take on the big government interests and win.”

Of course, we will need to wait and see if this truly emerges as a big issue for Walker.  My guess is, while people do care and would like President's to be highly educated, most will brush off any hesitations and vote for the candidate they like/trust best.

As in all issues with these campaigns, stay tuned................

How far left and right should they go??????????

First, a bit of a history reminder.  In 1992, Bill Clinton ran as a center-left candidate, even adopting the line that era of big government is over (remember, Clinton was a Democrat).  In 2000, George W Bush ran with the bumper sticker of a Compassionate Conservative, and the uniter, not divider (as a Republican).  Most recently, Barack Obama vowed to cut through partisan politics/bickering and be President of One Nation, not one party.

Much has changed in eight (8) years.  Most campaigns face a critical challenge when running for their respective parties nomination.  Do I attempt to move to the middle of my parties base platforms, thus, potentially expanding my voting block, while not alienating my core.  Or, do I attempt to move far right and/or left of my base, thus, firing up my parties core and getting them in mass to not only vote, but recruit others.

While this second strategy may help win nominations, and potentially elections, it often means large governing challenges ahead.  If the next President wants to pass any legislation, they will most likely nee to work with the other party (Congress/Senate).  However, with the highly polarizing bases of today, it simply invites gridlock, and nothing will get done.

So, we get back to our central theme.  After all, if you don't get elected, you can't do anything, so it must be better to either move to the center or the extreme right/left, and after election day, slide back one way or the other to govern effectively.

Let's talk about another option.  How about a leader who says what He/She truly believes, frames debates as to what's better for the country, not their party, and a President who can build consensus? 

I realize in the era of MSNBC and Fox News it's not easy to be a non pandering candidate, but isn't it worth trying?  With all of the name calling, venom and general dislike, isn't it time for a new approach.  A candidate that reaches beyond parties and talks about what's best for us, not for the party?