Author Stephen Guttmann proposes that presidential (and vice-presidential) candidates be required to have visited a minimum of twenty countries before they can run for office. He writes, "Sadly, we ignored a red flag during our previous two presidential campaigns. Quite simply, a middle-aged man of considerable means and privilege who has freely chosen in his first fortysomething years on this planet to visit fewer than four countries (of the almost 200 United Nations' members) should not be permitted to captain our nation." Read Guttmann's proposal and share your comments here by clicking "Comments" below!
International Travel Required for Presidential Candidates?
By Matt Rosenberg, About.com GuideOctober 20, 2008
Related Articles
- Ten Deadly Mistakes Job Searchers Make - And Why They Should Matter to Empl...
- Believe What You See: More About How to Use Nonverbal Communication in Hiri...
- A Day in the Life of a President - American Government
- Once More, from the Top - Body Language
- Damien Nguyen Interview - Damien Nguyen on The Beautiful Country
Top Related Searches presidential candidates
Explore Geography
Comments
International travel for presidential candidates is a good idea. I don’t know if spending 48 hours someplace will give you enough insight to matter. 20 countries is a high number. Which 20 countries would be the best countries for a candidate to visit?
I’d rather that candidates be able to identify 20 countries on a world map. I think most of my classmates in my third grade could have passed such a test. But then, that was a long time ago.
Absolutely! Would-be presidents should know what life is like in other countries.
While I think it is a good idea, I do not believe youŽd have many able to run. As well, would not this requirement have to be an Amendment to the Constition? I agree, though, with an earlier comment: be able to identify, name etc. The previous “lack of knowledge” is … well, “not good.”
Better than visiting 20 countries would be reading 20 books about other countries of the world. Including the history, culture and economy on each of 20 countries. This would give a future president the background and understanding to make the decisions necessary to conduct good foreign policy.
Yes most definitely and probably more than for a day, maybe a week in each
I think this proposal is a great step in the right direction, but probably is too simplistic. For instance, brief trips to Mexico and Canada shouldn’t be included. I also believe that some substantive overseas involvement would be more valuable than just quick, superficial visits to tourist destinations. Oh, yes…one other thing: bombing another country from a high-performance military aircraft probably shouldn’t count, either (although such military experience might certainly count in other ways).
Rather than request that candidates visit 20 countries why don’t you vote for the person [s] according to the their ability to do the job? If American voters had the intelligence to identify someone with the appropriate international experience then Al Gore would have been the President right? Don’t blame the candidates for not having the correct qualifications, blame the voter…. I guess what this means is you get the President you deserve
Am I right in supposing that President Reagan had a person on his staff called ‘The Geographer’ who was there to point places out to him… I would like to feel that the most important elected person in the world had a grasp of global affairs or at least had seen the Eiffel Tower.
Both S. Herrington and Stuart’s veiled comments are out of line. With regard to Canada and Mexico, absolutely, both should count. They are our chief trading partners! What ignorance. The argument that 20 countries should be required to be President is odd. What countries? Until Nixon was President, China was off limits. Now, China is a significant player on the world scene. What this reeks of is privilege. Remember the geographer in the “Little Prince”? He had never visited anywhere, but was the most knowledgeable member of the universe! If the 10% solution is the answer, it would be much more important for the President to have spent more than a passing visit to 10% of the counties in the U.S. … 310. Remember, the President is to represent us, not the world.
Stuart, a majority of voters ACTUALLY CHOSE Al Gore over Bush, so don’t blame the voters. Blame the unfair, electoral college system which awards the Presidency to the winner of electoral votes, rather than according to actual popular votes.
Yes, it would be better if our candidates knew more about the world, instead of our common ignorance, but making it mandatory to visit an arbitrary number isn’t the answer. In fact, it’s very prejudical against younger and/or poorer candidates, er, like, say Mr. Obama. This suggestion is clearly one aimed at him v. McCain, who becasu eof wealth and age has had a better opportunity. The correct answer is to have better geography (cultural and physical) education in our primary and high school education. My kids grew up in S. Americ a and had geography every year. And they know a lot aobut the world. Richer and older candidates are much more likely to have travel extensively than poorer or younger ones. This proposal as outlined is clearly prejudicial.
It would be good if they had but to require it is a bit on the rediculous side. There is absolutely nothing that can prepare a person for what a president experiences internationally. In my mind it would be more important they can pass both a geography test and a test of Constitutional understanding.
I would think it much more important for our President to know what life is like in the U.S.
Oops .. yes Win agreed re number of voters, but your judiciary showed bias that gave the USA a result the world has regreted. Tim you miss the point. You cannot regulate the number of countries a person visits before they qualify. In a worse case scenario a potential candiate will take a 21 day tour of Europe and meet the criteria – would you trust a candidate that did that? Your discussion is purely academic and misses the reality – voters have to decide on the basis of the qualities of the person[s] in front of them. Your recent record hasn’t been very good. I hope you can do better this time.
Interesting. How could peterG have visited over200 countries if there are only 195????
I have travelled considerably and even I haven’t been able to rack up 20 countries. People have jobs, kids, college loans, etc. We live in a country that only allows two weeks of vacation a year. Also, travel isn’t all that affordable. Have you checked the dollar vs. the Euro in the last four or five years? I’d like my candidate to be well-educated and well-read and maybe speak a foreign language like French or Spanish or maybe Chinese or Arabic. Presidential wannabes should take a trip all right…to Wal Mart or the grocery store or the gas station. So many of the people running for office haven’t driven, much less filled-up the gas tank, in years. Do they know the price of toilet paper, milk, bread, eggs, potatoes, tomatoes, a pound of chicken or ground beef, or a box of diapers? All politicians with national aspirations, be it Congress or the presidency, need a solid foundation in history and geography and if they don’t get it in school/college, then they need to self-educate. If they have the opportunity (means) to travel, so much the better. Half the fun in travel is the preparation for it. When a person becomes president and begins making state visits, they should structure their travels so that they can do more than see the inside of a limo and a presidential palace. Do a little shopping, visit a hospital, see a museum, take a drive in the countryside, stop at a mine or factory, check out a wind farm, admire the architecture both old and new. Be both a tourist and a traveller, as well as a head of state. And, oh yes, listen, listen, listen. The rest of the world has a lot to tell us.
Foreign travel is desirable for all leaders of all nations, as one cannot tell what a place and its peoples are like until one sees them.
For the leader of an important nation state, seeing other places before one becomes that nation state’s leader is even more important, so that one can judge the difference in peoples’ reactions before and after one’s election, appointment, or whatever.
As the USA is an important member of the international community its prospective leaders need that international expertise more than most.
I appreciate the difficulties mentioned by other commentators re vacations, costs etc.,so twenty countries might be a bit much to ask. Ten might be more realistic, provided they are relevant to the times.
By the time I was 38 I had visited 39 countries (as defined by Matt), and several other “territories”, mainly because it was in my employers’ interests that I did so.
In an increasingly globilised economy that option may be available to more U.S. citizens,once this recession is dealt with, and for some immediately.
Our 6th President, John Quincy Adams was a world traveler at an early age. From ages 11 through 16 he lived in France and the Netherlands, where he attended Leiden University (his father was the U.S. Minister there). From ages 14 through 17 he also visited Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and St. Petersburg Russia, to try to establish U.S. diplomatic relations with those countries, and wrote a book about Silesia.