In this Presidential election cycle, there is an abundance of candidates who have no prior experience running for elected office, or even serving in appointed positions in government. Voters appear to be flocking to these neophyte wannabes more so than usual. You see it farther down the line in statewide elections as well. It's more and more rare to see someone like former Senator Mike Johanns who started his political career as a member of the Lancaster County Board, later a City Coucilman and Mayor of Lincoln. He was elected twice as governor, appointed to the position of Secretary of Agriculture and and ended his political career as a United States Senator. I did not agree with Johanns' politics, but he built his political base and experience in small arenas and gradually worked his way up. One couldn'treasonably claim that he lacked experience. But today, experience seems to be a liability rather than a resume enhancer.
Of course there have always been candidates from paths other than politics who have run for high office. Military veterans and business owners have sucessfully translated their careers as leaders into successful campaigns for elected office. It is arguable that running a large corporation or being responsible for the execution of a war would translate well into being the top executive of a state or even the nation. But it's not really the same thing. In both big business and in the military, leaders are in the position of having virtually dictatorial powers. The CEO doesn't take a vote to determine the direction of the company, the general doesn't hold an election to decide strategy or tactics. Businessman and women who are elected governors have a rude awakening when they discover that their state legislatures, even when of the same party, are not required to agree with the governor! Heads of large corporations who are elected to the Senate also find things different than they imagined. In the Senate they are just one of one hundred, they may have power and prestige in their own states, but now they are the junior members of an exclusive club. I say governor and senator, because it is my observation that heads of large corporations generally don't shoot for seats in the House of Representatives, almost as if it was beneath them. You didn't see Pete Ricketts running for City Councilman or Mayor or House of Representatives as his first elected office.
For quite a while we have had this trend of people getting elected to the Senate and to Governorships with little experience, but at least a governor is practically forced to start doing something, after all, whether or not you agree with the governor's politics, he or she is now in charge of the machinery of state government. In the legislative branch, especially when you're new and not in the leadership, you're free to be a gadfly, there's no pressure to actually do anything. It's as if a Senate seat, having become an entry-level position, has now devolved into a mere stepping stone to the presidency. Look at a few of our recent candidates. No, first let's go back to Dan Quayle.
Dan Quayle was the Vice President under George H.W. Bush. He was widely derided as being a lightweight, inexperienced and shallow. Yet Quayle had been elected to three terms in the House of Representives and two terms in the Senate before being elected Vice President. How things have changed since 1988. Before his election to the House, he held several positions in Indiana State government. But his "inexperience" was held against him. Fast forward to the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Also portrayed as having little experience, he had served two terms in the Illinois State Senate, ran for (and lost) an election for House of Representatives, and was elected to United States Senate in 2004. As a presidential candidate he was portrayed as having no experience and that he was using his Senate seat merely as a springboard to the Presidency.
Apparently that's not a problem anymore, since two of the main Republican candidates are first-term senators, one of whom has accomplished little other than antagonizing the rest of the Senate, including his Republican colleagues. On the one hand, supporters of the inexperienced claim that those with experience are not only part of the problem, but are the heart of the problem. Therefore, bringing in the inexperienced will somehow "fix the problem". Unfortunately, many of these amateurs fail to understand that there is a great difference between pointing out the failings of those in power and actually doing something about it. No matter how much we scorn the political class, it is a job and a skill like any other. When you need the cooperation of a majority of your colleagues to advance your agenda, screaming at the top of your lungs and demonizing them doesn't accomplish much.
The so-called Tea Party movement brought a lot of inexperienced people into government, many of those are now being criticized as having "sold out"; others are doing nothing other than complaining about others who they say have sold out. In any political movement there will be those who are attracted by the power and abandon their principles. But inexperience itself is not a virtue. No matter what ones political orientation, someone has to know how to get things done, someone has to have the ability to work with others, even those with whom there is bitter disagreement.
So now, in addition to the newbies populating the legislature, we have a crowd of people who, not only lack any experience, but lack any notion of how to accomplish anything in government. They, to put it not-so-diplomatically, don't know what the heck they're talking about. They make pronouncements about military actions without the slightest idea of the ramifications of military involvement, they prattle on about policy positions without any inkling of nuance. They appeal to the most ignorant among us. They act as if the presidency is an all-powerful position where their very wishes will become truth.
As if the skills to lead our nation can be learned on the fly.
No comments:
Post a Comment