By MARTIN DYCKMAN, Times Columnist
Published March 26, 2006
In one nightmare that haunted me for years, I had relapsed and was smoking again. In another, I had forgotten to study for an all-important French test. They say such posttraumatic dreams are common.
If that be so, Jeb Bush and his Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test are to blame for more night terrors than the ubiquitous bogeyman. Every year, some 400,000 public school children are made to understand that failing the FCAT will blight their lives forever. More than half these kids are only 8 years old.
To hear the governor, however, it's all about how much Florida really loves them. This is what he said recently:
"If you don't measure it, you don't care. In Florida we care a lot, and so measure the bejesus out of everything. And I'm proud of that."
Not quite so, governor. For example, we don't test the people who make and administer the FCAT, the SAT and other proprietary standardized tests. As recent news has made clear, this is a notable oversight.
More seriously, we don't test the people responsible for bad laws and government giveaways. There are basic skills tests for teachers and examinations for almost every regulated profession and civil service job. The Bar exam has a particularly fearsome reputation, which may owe in part to the incomprehensibility of so many Florida laws. (See below.)
So why isn't there a test for the people who want to make those laws? Any ignoramus can be elected to the Legislature, and often is.
There was once a Florida state senator - a lawyer, mind you - who, arguing for passage of an obscenity bill, declared that "Freedom of speech is a privilege, not a right." It was reported recently that Americans can more readily identify members of the Simpsons cartoon family than the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Is it safe to suppose that today's Florida legislators understand the Constitution any better than that senator did? (He was deficient in ethics as well, as revealed by his indictment for taking "referral fees" from a lawyer to whom he sent prospective lobbying clients. He beat that rap on a hypertechnicality.)
Many letters to this newspaper and others have suggested that politicians ought to be made to take the FCAT, the SAT or some of the other tests they inflict on the public - not necessarily to pass them, but just to post their scores.
One problem, however, is that the testing companies would never allow it, lest the politicians start to care more about scoring errors.
More seriously, there is nothing in any of those tests that assesses a person's citizenship, let alone his or her capacity to lead. It ought not to be hard, however, for some think tank to craft a workable political leadership test. The difficulty would be in compelling politicians to take it. For that, we need a constitutional amendment - an initiative, perhaps. It would do more good than term limits did.
The test should assess whether the candidate is capable of reading and understanding a typical piece of legislation, or would need a lobbyist to explain it. Another component would concern the candidate's comprehension of the state and federal constitutions. A sample question: Which of the following are not protected by the First Amendment?
a) Freedom of religion.
b) Free drinks.
c) Freedom of the press.
d) Free parking.
The ethics and election laws would provide the third and perhaps most important component. Here are some samples suggested, at my request, by Bonnie Williams, executive director of the Florida Commission on Ethics.
1. Obvious voting conflicts are created when a public official votes on a measure that would result in his own personal gain or loss. However, Florida law further addresses gain or loss to persons and/or entities other than the voting official. Can you name them?
Answer: Relatives and business associates.
2. In what way(s) might election to public office limit one's future employment opportunities?
Answer: Two-year prohibition against representing clients before one's former agency.
"I'm trying to think of something on gifts," Williams messaged me, "but the law is so convoluted that it's difficult."
Laws like that are made by people who are either dumb as dirt or dumb like a fox.
That's why we need a Florida Political Aptitude Test - to help voters tell the difference.
Martin Dyckman retired as Times associate editor in January.
