There is an Atlantic story about a reporter sorry because politician Richardson recently died. In addition to holding the world record for most handshakes on an hour, the ex-UN ambassador and negotiator said he deeply enjoyed politics.
“Because I’m sick of all these politicians these days who are always trying to convince you that they are not really politicians,” Richardson went on. I had noticed this phenomenon as well, and it holds up: that the slickest and most unctuous people you encounter in politics are often the ones who spend the most energy trying to convince you they hate politics and are in fact “not professional politicians.”
“Politician” has always been a bit of a disreputable label. “Statesmen” or “public servants” were in it to do good for the world and their constituents whereas “politicians” were in it for personal glory and power (and sotto voce graft plus now grift).
As such, claiming to be a non-politician has always had at least some crowd appeal to the most cynical of voters who default to “all pols are scum”. What has changed is that cynicism about government and politics and elites has exploded from a minority view to the accepted universal truth.
In Richardson’s era, faking sincerity was a way to grab the low-hanging populist fruit. So folks did it. And the more fake they appeared to a pro like Richardson, the better that sold to the cynical rubes. Making his observation true in his time.
Today the price of admission even to the city council is much better fake sincerity than was the case 50 years ago. And claiming to be an outsider or a non-pol is also pretty much de rigeur at least on the Right, and for some factions of the Left as well.
A large part of trump’s attraction is that he totally isn’t the usual fake sincerity. He’s a different kind of over-the-top fakery, but the novelty and the over-the-topness sells like hotcakes to uber-cynics and uber-selfish people. Which pretty well describes the MAGAt worldview.
ETA: thanks Waldo for pointing out the typo I missed.
Right. “Outsiderism” has been in fashion for quite a while across the spectrum, as has the whole “hey I’m just a regular guy/gal like you all” song and dance, often mutated on the conservative/centrist side into “hey, I’m a businessman who knows how to run things like a business” (nevermind that governing is not commercial business). This because people grow frustrated with the Establishment and want someone different and “fresh”.
In our current timeline, we know that has been joined in by the annoying business-buzzword-bingo/techbro-speak ideal of “disruption” as a value to be sought in and of itself.
The thing though is, as I once told someone back in PR: You are running for an elected office in an established political party. You ARE a politician. You say you are “not a career politician” – then you are a newbie politician learning as you go? Wait… do I see a record of campus/labor/church/community organizing/professional/business association activity? Ahhhh… I see… so you have been a competitive amateur politician and are now trying to turn pro.
And of course, “outsiderism” is fine and dandy until it’s an outsider you don’t like. Then it’s “hahaha, those voters elected a barista over a seasoned caucus leader” or “the difference between a mayor of a small town and a community organizer is the mayor has to get work done” and never mind what else those people have done in their lives.
I understand the appeal of saying one is outside the system or Beltway. That one has real world experiences and can effect change. Even if these pronouncements are made by people in politics for decades.
My question, then, might be: Are they excellent politicians you admire or respect who still frequently claim to be outside politics and not part of the insider gravy train?
This reminds me of a scene from “The Remains of the Day”, in which Christopher Reeve played an American politician in the lead up to WWII. At a conference in Great Britain he very politely chastises the attendees for being amateurs rather than professional politicians.
I think this is what Richardson represented in some way. He was a professional, he knew it and wasn’t afraid to say so. And being a professional means one has some preparation and some skills, which is what Reeve’s character was saying in the film. Here’s the scene:
Seems a bit of a poisoned question. There are political insiders who are skilled at the many legitimate arts of politics who have nothing whatsoever to do with a “gravy train” which suggests corruption and graft.
It’s precisely the assumption that a skilled admitted politician is actually just admitting to (unspecified unindictable) widespread corruption that got us into this mess of folks wanting to claim to be “outsiders” when what they’re really trying to claim is being honest.
I do know honest skilled politicians who do not falsely claim to be outsiders. But they’re all at the local level. I do not know of anyone at any level who’s both claiming outsider status and is an admirable skilled pol. Some might argue their place on the ideological fringe of their party makes them an outsider in that narrow sense. Whether that’s Sarah Palin’s “maverick” or Bernie Sander’s whatever-he-is.
for pointing out the typo I missed.
