I’d like to ask you about the value of political experience in winning elections.
It seems to me that people are saying they want someone well-equipped to handle the unique challenges facing this country–in effect, someone with political experience and experience in navigating the “back room dealings” of Washington. Someone who knows the game. Then in the same breath, they say they want someone who is not part of the Washington DC establishment, someone not tainted by the corruption and doubletalk that typify our elected representatives. A fresh face with fresh ideas.
To me, the only way you get political experience is by really becoming part of the system—knowing the game and how to “get things done.”. How far can you get as a genuinely inexperienced person?
If the system is so entrenched, would the better candidate not be the one with the most experience and connections within it?
A fresh face could be browbeaten or bullied into unfavorable deals if they don’t know how to properly manage these political relationships.
But then, they could also effect positive change BECAUSE of their newness. An unknown and unpredictable candidate could use this quality to advantage when maneuvering politically.
If a so-called fresh face (a relative newcomer) got elected, people would be lionizing their champion who will bring CHANGE to Washington, but also bemoaning their unfamiliarity with the way things work. How is this reconciled? What wins out in the end?
I feel like a person would buckle to the system before the system would bend to the will of any one individual.
The system can’t be changed by one man, not so much because the system is corrupting, but because powers are divided so much. The President’s role is defined by the Constitution and is fairly limited. He’s called “the most powerful man in the world”, yet a Prime Minister in a parliamentary system wields more power. We also have a federalist system, which further limits a President’s power.
IMO, political experience is unimportant unless you have an ambitious legislative agenda. What’s more important is competence, honesty, and being a bit above partisan politics. The President’s core job is to conduct foreign policy and carry out the laws passed by Congress. Those jobs are nonpolitical, or should be.
Three letters: LBJ. The consummate politician, who used his ability to get important things done.
Achievement doesn’t come just from good plans. It comes from dealing. It comes from knowing who has the power and what they want. Jimmy Carter is a great example of a really smart guy who couldn’t get it done, partially because he had no connections in DC.
As for being above politics, how did that work out for Obama? I think he would have gotten more done if he kicked a little more butt.
Obama has not been above politics, that’s part of his problem. Very few PResidents have been as partisan as he has. Most Presidents prefer to leave that to surrogates. Then there’s the fact that he’s allowed his government to enforce the law in a partisan manner, whether through neglect or intention.
Is anyone actually saying both of these things? Certainly there are people who criticize newcomers and say they don’t know the system well enough to play the game and get things done, and certainly there are also people who say they want an outsider who isn’t beholden to the “good ol’ boys’ club” of Washington and will bring in fresh ideas. But I don’t know that it’s the same people making both points.
The US electorate is schizophrenic in that they love incumbents but hate the way politics is currently done and are looking for a savior to sweep in and make things right.
What ends up happening is that since the presidency is the only office with term limits, congressmen get re-elected and a new savior sweeps in every eight years. Since change is most possible at the beginning of a term, this period is usually either squandered or the old guard ends up taking control while the new president is still trying to find his bearings.
Obamacare is a great example of this, Obama came in with a huge mandate and his party in complete control of the government. However since he was a neophyte, he had to turn to congress to get anything passed. However Congressional leaders are leaders because they are good at trying to satisfy everyone and not because they have a vision. Thus without strong presidential leadership bills end up being filled with pet projects and have no coherence or focus. They ended up with a stimulus bill loaded with pork and an health care bill so poorly written and conceived the Supreme Court has had to rewrite it twice.
I think you’re confusing polarizing with partisan. He’s extremely polarizing; on one side you have people still wild about the first black president, and on the other, in addition to the people reacting to that (probably not a lot in the scheme of things, but, y’know, too many) there are the people raised on Rush Limbaugh who have difficulty accepting that a Democrat can do anything that isn’t bad for the country or can even be legitimately elected president, and then back on the liberal side you have people who cling to him all the more tenaciously in reaction to that. But don’t let contentious smoke lead you into seeing partisan fire.
The last president we’ve had without political experience was 70 yrs ago, and that’s because he won WWII.
Ross Perot was ridiculed, although that could be because he is also somewhat crazy. Trump will get a similar welcome. Even someone with a less out-sized personality like Carly doesn’t have much chance.
Plus, there is political experience, and political experience. A “regular” Senator or Representative is one thing - LBJ was that for a dozen years each, but he was also Senate Majority Leader for six years and Whip and Minority Leader for two years each. He knew both bodies inside and out.
If a politician doesn’t have that kind of leadership experience, he is probably better off if he was a governor or executive of some kind.
I think the only people who can think political experience is unnecessary are those who have the process and effort greatly simplified in their minds and believe that good intentions and earnest effort are enough. Or the next step, that anything but good intentions and earnest effort is somehow a negative - that anyone who understands the process and has experience in it is somehow tainted or corrupted by the knowledge.
This seems to overlap a great deal with those who believe government “can be run like a business”… which is one of the most useful touchstones for determining whether a politician or pundit knows a damned thing about political governance.
Politics, especially at the senior levels, benefits from the specific knowledge and experience of political effort. It need not be corrupting or negative. I think you can no more be an effective senior government representative without experience than you can a mechanic, physician or Cat skinner.
I know that this is the RNC party line, but it is ridiculous. He tried to work with the Republicans at the beginning, but they were solidly against him. Remember McConnell’s pledge? Obviously Republicans want to win the next election, but putting that goal above the good of the country is crap. And that is what they did.
Obama never “tried to work with Republicans.” A dim-witted American electorate put him in office with a Democrat controlled Congress. Obama didn’t have to work to get his failed stimulus, etc. passed and he used Chicago-style thug politics on any reluctant Democrats to get Obamacare passed.
When people “woke up” and asked themselves, “WTH have we done?” and voted a Republican majority into the House, Obama was forced to try to work with Republicans on Cut, Cap and Balance, but backed out at the last minute and has never looked back.
Obama has never, ever tried to work with Republicans…he doesn’t even really “work with” Democrats.
Indeed-he is a dictator. The grandiose, multi-million $$ world trips, the enormous expenditures for security (and yet the Secret service is scandal-ridden) all speak to a peculiar mindset.