Its funny, the very attributes that made Trump so attractive to Republicans ("He's a successful businessmen") are precisely what has led him into lies, corruption, bribery and possibly even treason. I'm not saying businessmen shouldn't be elected, just that we be really careful before we do so.

We need statutory mechanisms that will ensure that a candidate's business interests will not conflict with his public office. I realize that there are already numerous laws and guidelines in place (such as the Emoluments Clause), but it appears Trump simply ignored them, and the Republican Party made no effort to enforce them. And his evasion of those laws and statutes and customs was celebrated by his followers as evidence of his dynamic, take-charge, "executive" nature and decisive management style. For the rest of us, it was just evidence of his penchant for cutting into line ahead of those who are patiently awaiting their turn. Democrats saw a bully who cuts corners. For starters, we STILL haven't seen his fucking tax returns.

Conflicts of interest are the most obvious place to start, it should be a part of the nomination process that documents be filed with an independent watchdog agency that completely spell out the candidate's business holdings and that they be placed in trust, open to public inspection, away from his control during the period of elected office. And it goes without saying that policy decisions made by a politician are not motivated primarily to furthering his business interests after he leaves office. It may be conceded that a lawmaker may very well have a perfectly legitimate reason to pursue a public policy which coincidentally benefits his own interests, but at least the rest of us should be aware of it.

The primary purpose of government is to protect us from bullies, and people with great financial power who control substantial property and productive assets certainly qualify, right along with foreign armies and common criminals. We do not appoint gangsters sheriff simply because they have an intimate understanding of crime and the law. There is no reason why a businessman can't be a political leader, but there is every reason to scrutinize him before he starts.

And most of all, we should realize that simply being a businessman does not particularly qualify a man for an elected position. The personality and skills which allowed him to accumulate a fortune or administer a commercial empire may well be of value in public office, but they are neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to assume one. A man's private interests are his own business, but they become a public concern when he seeks access to coercive government power.

If anything good comes from this squalid little episode in American history, it will be that the next time a successful businessman runs for elected office or is nominated for a position in the government bureaucracy, he will have to first persuade us that his private success does not disqualify him for public service.