There really is little room to debate whether the Bush administration will be recorded in history as one of, if not the single most incompetent administrations in our nation’s history. It starts at the top, and with cronyism in appointments to sensitive positions, reverberates down through the ranks.

In 1968 Dr. Laurence J. Peter wrote a best selling book titled, “The Peter Principle”. His book was based on the theory that in a hierarchy members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent, arriving at their “level of incompetence”. His theory states that “in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties” and adds that “work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence”.

At the time he published his book it’s doubtful he could have ever imagined such an explicit, and public validation of his theory as George W. Bush and those he selected to become members of his administration.

As we move through this presidential election it’s possible our nation, in making our selection, will help write the second chapter of validation for the “Peter Principle” theory. I can’t recall who it was, but appearing on a political discussion television program about a year ago, a presidential scholar made an interesting comment. He maintained that you can get an advanced look at how a candidate would handle the office if elected, by viewing the competency of how he manages his campaign. That’s a reasonable assertion based on logic, and according to the presidential scholar, supported by evidence.

Temporarily setting the issues of the day aside, we’ve seen the devastating effect of incompetence over the past seven years, and we would be well advised to focus briefly on the level of expected competence of the two candidates. Great ideas and plans, incompetently administered will have predictable results. The problems facing our next president are as great in size and scope as those Franklin D. Roosevelt faced when he took office. The past seven years have removed our safety net for incompetence to be part of the solution equation.

If the presidential scholar was correct, then we should go beyond the candidate’s speech of the day and cast a wider view of how their campaign is functioning. How many staff “re-alignments” are occurring, how many “what he meant to say” press conferences are convened, how many close advisers are removed because of errors, how many policy reversals (aka flip-flops) are we seeing, and a general sense of structured focus are important to take note of. If a candidate can’t pass that test, their stance on the issues of the day doesn’t mean much.

Our nation’s problems would only worsen significantly if we help write the second validation chapter to “The Peter Principle”. Our next president must restore competency first, policies second.