Victor Davis Hanson homes in on one of the big themes of the forthcoming USA elections, which is just how many of the candidates are not life long politicians, but people who have got seriously stuck into doing other things. Not stuck in to other things so as to have a better story to tell when they eventually make that first dash for political office that they all along had planned, but seriously stuck into other things as in seriously stuck in, as in it not occurring to them that they would ever be running for any political office:
[A] rare American – war hero, author, West Point instructor, retired colonel, conservative – Chris Gibson is running neck and neck in New York’s 20th Congressional District. I don’t get involved in political races per se; but I met Chris during his one-year stay at Stanford, and found him a rare Renaissance figure – yet another of these idealistic first-time candidates without a political resume who are entering the fray to save this country. I think pundits have not appreciated the fact that this is not quite a red/blue, Republican versus Democratic race, but a historic election in which many of the Republican candidates are first-time politicians, beholden to no one, and not part of the Republican establishment.
Not having a “political resume” seems to be just what the voters are now looking for. Every time the regular politicians accuse one of these political amateurs of having said or done something amateurish, the above impression, of not being a regular politician, is reinforced.
I get the feeling that the present political class in the USA contains hardly anyone who could mend a roof or build a car or program a computer or fly a helicopter, but that in among the next bunch, there will be quite a few who can do such things. There will be more “life skills” (think of the Harrison Ford character in Six Days and Seven Nights) in American politics than there are now.
Not that I think this matters very much. The crucial thing is: will these people have the right political ideas and do the right political things? You can do something very well but then come an almighty cropper when you switch careers, just as you can be undone by a mere promotion out of what you did well to telling others how to do what you did well. If this next generation of US politicians, many of whom are now professional-at-other-things, prove to be as amateurish in a bad way as the present lot of politicians, then they won’t last long as politicians, and heaven help America.
vote for the rocket scientist in az 7
(Link)
I was happily following along in this post until the last sentence brought me up short: “If this next generation of US politicians, many of whom are now professional-at-other-things, prove to be as amateurish in a bad way as the present lot of politicians, then they won’t last long as politicians, and heaven help America.”
First of all, “the present lot of politicians” isn’t “amateurish” (in either a good or bad way, whatever that means), which is precisely the problem: they are professional politicians whose primary interest is re-election and preserving the status quo (i.e., their power). And in their very professional way they’re responsible for the mess we’re in now.
Which leads to my second point, which is that “amateur” politicians may make mistakes of a political nature (uttering unspeakable truths, declining to play the “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” game, etc.), but they couldn’t possibly do any worse for the nation than their “professional” predecessors.
As I see it, the only real “mistake” these newcomers could make would be to allow themselves to be seduced by Washington and blindly follow the lead of the mossbacks who do survive next month’s carnage. Congress needs a thorough housecleaning, and that means eliminating much of what passes for “leadership” there, in both parties but especially the Republican.
And I certainly don’t want them to “last long as politicians.” I don’t want anyone to last long as a politician. The historical tradition in the US was once for citizen-legislators, who spend a few months each year attending to the nation’s business and the rest of the time running their own. We lost sight of that when we permitted Congress to remain in essentially perpetual session. The result was inevitable: constant expansion of the scope of the federal government and of the politicians’ personal power. That arrogation of power by Washington has attracted precisely the wrong sort of persons to serve as legislators. We need to return to the concept of non-career politicians (which is why we desperately need term limits, and to eliminate Congressional pensions) who view a term or two in office as a service to their country rather than as a lifetime vocation, a sacrifice rather than a reward.
Amateurs are precisely what we need.
To follow up on Laird’s comment, the argument that term limits will increase the power of unelected congressional staffers is ludicrous, coming from legislators who already rely on staff to summarise for them the bills they vote on.
I’d also like to see the states provide free housing in Washington for their senators and representatives and require them to live there, as a way to keep them from putting down roots.
Having never seen Americans this pissed off in an election in over 35 years of following politics, I think at the very least we will get a different set of thieves at the till.
Many of us are not expecting miracles with an overthrow of the current Administration’s enablers but are at least hoping for gridlock. Gridlock compared to the last 4-5 years of stupidity would be a Godsend to our faltering Republic.
At the very least we will see the last of those smug ignoramuses Pelosi and Reid. Hell, HM Obama might lose some of his smirks too.
And further to Laird’s comment:
It is not incompetence. The required agenda is being achieved extremely competently by an apparent controlling consensus.
This whole issue is addressed by Garet Garrett in: The Revolution Was.(Link)
I have referred to it before. Sorry. But I think once one grasps that what is going on is actually the path being very deliberately taken by those who wish to enhance control, and apportion to themselves vast wealth, it makes very clear and simple sense.
And having been written in 1938 it really does show that nothing too much has changed in terms of the mechanics of control. It has just moved on to new pastures.
We are not being dealt with by a bunch of incompetents.
Perhaps some of the front men are. But they are not setting the agendas.
Sorry. Did something wrong with the machine.
Link in full: http://mises.org/daily/2726
{sigh} More delusion.
This November will make no difference on the course of things. It will not matter.
http://www.two–four.net/weblog.php?id=P5023
I’m glad that John B brought up Garrett’s “The Revolution Was” again. It’s a fairly long work (and I’m no fan of Garrett’s writing style), but well worth the time. It’s startling that words written in 1938 could be so resonant today. Read it with a highlighter in hand; you’ll be using it frequently.
Interesting how the two-term rule applies to Presidents but no-one else.
I’m falling on the side of amateur politicians, history tells you that a professional politician is merely a carpetbagger out to rape the system for as long as he/she can get away with it.
Tony Benn once gave the world the important questions we should ask of politicians:
1) What power have you got?
2) Where did you get it from?
3) In whose interests do you use it?
4) To whom are you accountable?
5) How do we get rid of you?
Of course, ironically, #5 didn’t apply to Tony Benn, he not only loved to pontificate on democracy but he knew how to play the system as well, to the extent of fudging the law just so he could stay in power, and keep his nest feathered at public expense for his entire “career”, because he was really nothing but a foul carpetbagger.
Two or three term limits, and age limits of 30-55, then f*ck off and give someone else a go, kthanks.
My “professional” Congressman is Heath Shuler. His qualification is that he was a well known college football player. He was basically elected due to his connections.
Having talked and corresponded with him on different occasions, I would prefer the guy standing behind the counter at the gas station or the 7/11.
All true, Blue, but remember who Shuler replaced. Bad as he may be, at the time of Shuler’s initial election I thought he was a step up from Charles Taylor (who was himself elected because of his “connections”, as well as family money). Time for another change now, though.
Many of the candidates for election in November are indeed people who really do what to reduce the size and scope and government.
And that is the first step – you have to want to do it.
The current politicians are not “amateurish” – in the sense of wanting to reduce the size of government and failing, on the contrary they want to increase the size of government and are succeeding (the Democrats) or just do not really care (much of the Republican leadership – especially in the Senate).
Also many of the let-us-roll-back-government candidates are interesting people who have a life outside politics (“you are just saying that because some of them are role players and historical reenactors…” – “shut up” Paul explained).
Will they get elected?
Some of them will be – some will not be.
“Even if they were all elected would it save America and the West”.
At the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, it depends what you mean by “save”.
If you mean – painlessly make things O.K. again the honest reply is “no”.
Even a President ….. (fill in the best name you can think of) and a Senate made up of people like Jim De Mint (already there), Ken Buck, Karen Angle, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, Christine O’Donnell (teenage witches hat and all)…… and so on, could not do that.
The United States is bankrupt – that fact has to be faced.
However, the United States (and the other nations of the bankrupt West) can be refounded – restored. We come out the other side of bankruptcy and breakdown – in spite of all the suffering that is to come.
But only if we want to – and only if government LETS US.
That is why having non totalitarians (even non would be totalitarians) in charge of government is so important.
“But most of the roll back government candidates are religious wackjobs”.
If someone saying that means “strongly religious” then that is true.
But observe the type of religion – it is not “collective salvation” (the “my salvation depends on the salvation of all people” Liberation “Theology” of Comrade Barack) it is very much individual salvation.
Also there are no Augustine fans out there – no one who believes in useing force in relgious matters.
Also their religion is there source of strength.
It could be some forms of athiest philosophy – but it happens not to be (although, please note, they welcome the friendship if Randian Athiests, indeed did so long before they “ran for office” – so they are not hostile to nonbelievers).
“Questing with boldness – even the very existance of God. For if there be a God, He will welcome honest questioning better than blind faith” (Thomas Jefferson).
Whose favourate quotation is that?
The ultimate “religous wackjob” himself – Glenn Beck.
But it could go for any of the candidates Brian is pointing at – they are not Augustine fans.
As for their courage – it may lead them to defeat, but at least it leads them to try.
Remember the scene in El Cid where the main character (played by Charlton Heston) intercepts a military escort taking a young prince to life imprisonment (or worse).
The Prince has committed no crime – so El Cid demands they let him go.
They respond by laughing – and pointing out that they are many men and he is alone.
“The just man is never alone – for God is with him” says El Cid has he charges into attack.
Insane from an athiest point of view – and from some theological points of view as well (mine for example).
However, the military escort is thrown into confusion – and makes the fatal mistake of panic…..
Sometimes a direct assault (if at high speed and with the element of confusion and surprise) is the least insane option.
Billy Beck has a point, however I’m seeing a lot of encouraging signs besides just the upcoming election.
My fear is that all that enthusiasm will wane a bit in the warm afterglow of electoral victory and this crop of representatives will be left to struggle and fail without our support just like Newt and his crew were left to fend for themselves after 1994. The failure that follows will of course be seen as invalidating all our other efforts as well.
There are many fronts in this struggle and we need to win on all of them.
My brother has been nagging me to get involved in local politics for a while but I lacked confidence in my ability to lead and persuade, also I’ve been busy trying to win a promotion and it’s eaten all my energy and enthusiasm. I got the position (maybe I should change my name to master of SporkLift Drivers now?). Anyway the experience has built skills and confidence that I intend to employ in time for 2012. I’ll know who the local candidates are and actively help someone’s campaign. I also intend to be a much more vocal and effective in promoting liberty and criticizing the various threats thereto.
It would be nice to think I won’t be too alone in the endeavor.
Apologies for any mistakes in grammar or spelling but this computer is acting like it will crash soon.
All true, Blue, but remember who Shuler replaced. Bad as he may be, at the time of Shuler’s initial election I thought he was a step up from Charles Taylor (who was himself elected because of his “connections”, as well as family money).
I knew we had bad politicians, but I didn’t know we had Liberian dictators in Congress. 😉
My US Representative has been running for poliitcal office since 1972: a failed run for State Assembly, followed by 18 years in the Assembly, and now 18 years in the US House.
But observe the type of religion – it is not “collective salvation” (the “my salvation depends on the salvation of all people” Liberation “Theology” of Comrade Barack) it is very much individual salvation.
Also there are no Augustine fans out there – no one who believes in useing force in relgious matters.
What the hell are you smoking, Paul? The social conservatives are entirely about using their religious beliefs to force their moral values on people: gay-bashing, Muslim-bashing, prohibitionist, and the FCC’s horrid “decency” rules are just a few examples.
It’s mainly pigs fighting over what’s in the trough.
Even a couple of tigers would change the scene.
Ted I was talking about TeaParty people – and they are NOT in favour of using force in religous matters.