Midterm Exam

Mid-term elections, that is. And the best part is that the exam is ungraded. At least for now. We’ll have to wait and see what November 2nd brings and then wait further to see if the new boss is any different than the old boss. In the meantime, though, let’s look at some general issues that can be answered individually.

First of all, I’m curious about the level of excitement at rallies for many of the candidates. I can understand the excitement a prospect of change creates, but no change has occurred yet and, even though a new elected individual takes office there is no guarantee of change in the future. The excitement sounds like marketing to me and that means shills are in the crowd to amp up the reactions. Something less than transparent and honest, huh?

I’m also puzzled by the notion that political neophytes labeled as outsiders are running for office on the grounds of upsetting government’s apple cart and taking us all to a better day. Don’t get me wrong: I encourage grass roots efforts and have espoused their impact in previous writings. But there is a difference between instilling the desire for change in the halls of power and throwing them out to do it ourselves.

Have you ever been unhappy with your doctor or lawyer? And, if so, did you perform your own surgery or act as your own counsel? Probably not. You more than likely sought out another qualified professional, i.e. career-type, to take over. Why would the political world be any different? To think that Joe or Jane next-door-neighbor/just like me can step in and handle the rigors of governing is absurd. I don’t know about you, but I want someone a good deal smarter than I. I’m not voting for the person I’d most like to invite over for dinner. I’m voting for the best possible person to lead my city/state/country through the next several years. Or, perhaps worse yet: thinking that Joe or Jane CEO can take over a political position and run it like a board room is beyond naive. Different careers require different skill sets and we should all know this.  

Speaking of the CEO types running for office next month, has anyone asked why they would spend millions for a position that pays much less? Many claim to be fiscal conservatives, but the campaigns they are conducting spend money as if it’s going out of style. Meg Whitman, running for California’s Governor, has spent over $100 million of her own money! Either she is fiscally irresponsible or is planning for a huge return on her investment. The question in my mind centers around how she’s going to get that return and from whom.

There can be no argument that times are something less than ideal and everyone is looking for the first rays of sunshine after a terrible storm. Our error lies in the sense that someone who has never done this before will be more successful than someone who has spent a lifetime doing it. While a change in office-holder may well be in order, wouldn’t we be better served by electing someone who at least knows the modus operandi of the political animal?

While conversations, debates, and arguments over political topics tend to be filled with vitriol and high levels of emotion, I would suggest that a calmer state of mind is required before casting a ballot. Know the candidates, the issues, and the priorities you might share with a candidate. With this information, pull the lever or fill in the box or punch out the square (keeping an eye on any hanging chads). This is all best done with a calm and collected mind lest emotion sweep us to rash and unthought-out actions. 

Regardless, nothing will change overnight within any political system merely because a new class of freshmen (or an individual Governor “Frosh”) takes office. While the promise of better times may be enough for the campaign trail, we must look beyond the hype and cast our votes wisely. Doing any less may lead us to an even harsher reality.

Outsiders

The political landscape is rife with candidates representing themselves as “outsiders”. This shouldn’t be surprising in light of the current distrust of those on the inside of the beltway in D.C. or a particular state capitol. Nevertheless, can we expect an outsider to be an effective legislator regardless of position? I’d say no and I’ll share my reasoning.

Some outsiders come from the corporate world where they enjoyed various levels of success. A case in point is Meg Whitman, a California GOP candidate vying for the party’s nomination for Governor. Ms Whitman gained fame while running EBay and is now pouring a good bit of her personal fortune into her election bid. The cornerstone of her campaign lies in the rationale that the state should be run as a company in which action outranks talk. Needless to say, the reaction is positive as frustration grows with legislative infighting and partisanship. A closer look, though, reveals a fatal flaw in such reasoning: Meg could take a “my way or the highway” approach to her company, but in Sacramento she will be forced to deal with a legislature, where the true power lies. Without a cooperative atmosphere, little progress will be made. Ross Perot would have faced the same problems had he been elected to the Presidency. Such CEO mentality might work in an authoritarian government, but usually meets its Waterloo in any kind of representative framework.

Charismatic candidates have been thwarted by the same dilemma. Jesse Ventura as the Governor of Minnesota and California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger both enjoyed celebrity status but failed to align the all-so-valuable legislators to advance their agendas. The idea that electing a matinee idol and expecting everyone involved with the political process to fall blindly into lockstep is naive at the very least.

Yes, the electorate votes for change by sending an individual to the State House or the White House or even Congress, but the change is hard to come by for a simple reason: no one is a political island. A Governor or President must create alliances within their respective legislatures to introduce laws and ultimately enact them. Without this alliance, gridlock ensues. And the “insiders” of those legislative bodies are loathe to entertain any scintilla of success for their Chief Executive. To do so creates the impression that career politicians are no longer necessary to do the will of the people. You can do it...or I can, too. This spells a boatload of trouble for anyone striving to maintain their place at the feed trough. So, while no progress is a bad thing for the constituents, it represents a return to politics as usual come the next election cycle. Mr. Ventura served but one term and Arnold is termed-out. Had he been able to run again, I doubt if he would have won the GOP nomination, let alone the election. Congressional outsiders are ostracized by their senior colleagues until they come around to the insider way of thinking. No committee posts or other opportunities to participate in the process. Most who resist opt out of seeking re-election or lose their bid for a return to office.

It is rare to find a candidate that is truly an outsider. Perhaps John F. Kennedy may have well been the latest one in the White House and that was largely due to his private wealth that enabled him to avoid the usual obligations to powerful interests. (Could it be that this fact had something to do with his untimely demise?) Regardless, the idea that simply seating an outsider within a political process that depends upon debate, alliance, and compromise generally fails to produce the desired results.

This has driven many voters from the process as they increasingly believe that their input is meaningless. True, human nature being what it is, politicians can be expected to act like everyone else when it comes to hanging on to one’s job. That alone, though, should not dissuade us from voting for “outsiders” as they represent a break from the past and the status quo. Their success, though, is another matter altogether, and we should not be surprised should they fall victim to concerted efforts undermining their agenda.