Political Ideology Aside . . .
Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 02:49PM 
Here's something to think about--party affiliation and political ideology aside.
The two current front runners for the office of President of the United States have never served in any executive office. If one of these two is elected, this means our President will have no executive experience whatsoever. The Senate does not create leaders, it creates pompous compromisers--the key to getting anything done in the Senate, but a principle that is inimical to leading the nation.
The two front-runners for the office of President of the United States have run on the theme of "change." Yet both are consummate Washington insiders blinded by "Beltwayitis." Despite the rhetoric, Clinton and McCain are clearly the establishment candidates. Change? Not from these two.
The two front-runners for the office of President of the United States have both managed to alienate a significant portion of the members of their own parties. McCain is universally reviled by small-government conservatives in his own party (indeed, he's antagonized them repeatedly), while Clinton has played the race card with Obama (the black candidate who, ironically, has eschewed making race an issue). If elected, either one will have significant problems with their base throughout their entire term of office.
Of course, things could change on Super Tuesday and Romney or Obama might reverse the current dynamics of the race (very unlikely, however). At this point, I'm convinced that our current primary system is not serving us at all. I liked the good old days of the smoke-filled party conventions when we got better candidates.
And with all of this electioneering taking place so far in advance of the general election, will anybody still be interested in November 2008? Any wonder why I am so cynical about American politics?
Reader Comments (28)
Peace
Mark Fletcher
San Luis Obispo.
Since your touching on politics, I would like to add something on Romney. Even though people have talked about his Mormonism as being a bit of a problem, I think they are overlooking something very important. Mormonism was unwelcoming to black people in the past. I think that many black people, including black Christians, would avoid supporting Romney due to this. I base this in part to the response I was given by a black pastor when I asked him about voting a Mormon into office. So for a party, specifically Republicans, to reach out to black people, I think Romney would not be a good candidate. And for you Ron Paul supporters, I don't think Ron Paul would do so good either given his past newsletters.
Go Ron Paul!
I was talking last night how this election looks like we are going to make history because this will be the first US Senator to be elected POTUS since Kennedy (and that works whoever the Democrat is at this point, whether Clinton or Obama). And I think with Rudy out his votes will break for McCain and Huckabee siphons off votes from Romney that he would need to make the inroads to stop McCain. So all around it looks like we are moving deck chairs on the Titanic whoever we elect of this cadre.
You are correct to say that commanding a Navy Air Wing is a type of executive experience, but as a fellow graduate of the Naval Academy I want to insist that it isn't enough for two reasons:
First, Air Wing commanders don't create policy they execute the policy created by others. These are fundamentally different skill sets. By contrast, Governors are responsible for both how they execute policies and what policies they execute.
Second, Air Wing commanders always get funding because their mission is so important. The ecomony that the rest of us live in has profits and losses, risk and reward. Last night's debate continued to reveal that Senator McCain has no clue as to how the private sector economy actually works. For example, he took a shot at Gov. Romney because some of the businesses he helped turn around resulted in job losses. Anyone who has actually run a business knows that you need to be able to both hire and fire people. More importantly, Senator McCain spoke of government intervention as "unleashing the American people" to solve problems. Yet, as anyone who understands free-market economics knows, the American people are "unleashed" when the government does less and takes a smaller amount of income in taxes. Oddly, Senator McCain is asserting that the creativity of the private sector is unleashed when the Federal government takes more of your money and then tells businesses how they should spend it. Having served both in the military and the non-profit world before moving into business, I see a direct connection between this view and the fact that Sen. McCain has spent his entirely adult life working for the Federal government.
David A Booth
As anachronistic as it sounds, the old-school smoky room approach actually has one very significant advantage, which is this: party insiders/bosses would do a better job of considering many criteria for suitability than the general public. We tend to focus on one characteristic or trait (Obama: Change! Clinton: Experience! McCain: Electable! Romney: Um...rich?). The insiders, because the future of their party depends on it, would weigh experience and temperament and charisma and electability in a more balanced manner.
Sounds un-American, I know. But I thought I would stir the pot a little. While we're at it, maybe we could also repeal the 17th amendment and go back to having senators be appointed by the state legislatures :).
Wouldn't the party bosses in the smoke filled room have picked Senators Clinton and McCain?
David
It's like electing a leader of the world's religions, and our two candidates are PCA and OPC.
OK with me! Like I said, I disagree with the general point Kim is making about the need for executive experience. I think McCain would be a fine nominee. I'm not a Clinton fan, but that's on ideological grounds and not "lack of executive experience" grounds.
It's like electing a leader of the world's religions, and our two candidates are PCA and OPC."
So true Jason.
The problem is our candidates *are* still picked by a select few.
I can't resist...Go Ron Paul.
Russ
Spot on! I'm all for a third party, a fourth party, a fifth party . . . And I'm not talking about the "Greens," "Peace and Freedom" or the "Constitution Party." I mean something viable, which can nominate candidates who are not kooks and who can actually get votes and effectively challenge the Dems and Repubs. That would be huge! But how likely? Not much . . .
You failed to mention the URC in that group. After attending three of our synods, I'm convinced we are up for the job (yeah, right).
David and MJ:
OK, you guys might be right about the smoke-filled room. The party hacks might indeed give us a Clinton and a McCain. My point was that at least the party hacks might do what the current primary system is not doing--evaluating a potential candidate's resume and temperament to be President (something both Clinton and McCain clearly lack). The current system completely ignores a candidate's executive experience for the demographics of electibility. We elect those people who run the best commercials, who are owed the most favors, not those who are the most qualified.
MJ:
I think David Booth's point is critical. Senators are legislators--this requires a completely different approach (and skill set, perhaps) from someone who serves in the executive branch. There is a reason why JFK was the last Senator to be elected President. And if you strip away the myth of Camelot and take away the tragedy of the assassination, Kennedy was not very successful as an executive.
Executives lead. They are supposed to set forth an ideological vision for their party (without seeking compromise). Executives must be able to delegate specific tasks to managers, who are skilled in making the chief executive's vision a reality. Compromise and negotiation should not come at the executive level, but at the cabinent/staff level (i.e. the managers).
That is why Senators will not make good Presidents. The ideal case is someone who has served as an executive (i.e. a governor) and in congress.
I'm glad you agree with the need for more options, but remember: One man's "kook" is another's hero.
The problem, it seems, is that a person who would be labeled a "kook" when compared with the current <i>political discussion</i> may actually be quite mainstream when compared with current <i>public opinion.</i>
The problem is, if a candidate doesn't already endorse the "right views" (as outlined by his/her corporate campaign contributors) then he doesn't stand a chance of entering the debate and being heard, even if he represents a huge chunk of the people.
And then, since he's (predictably) not "viable," he is labeled a "kook" and dismissed.
Out of all 4 remaining contenders, every single one will be interested in passing lots of bad legislation. (Romney is a people pleaser and definitely no exclusion) Gridlock is our only hope, and our best chances for gridlock are a Clinton pres. and a GOP congress after the next cycle (but by that time it may be too late.)
Our second best chance is that McCain is elected and congress tries to shove earmarks into his environmental bills (which should also result in gridlock.)
Maybe part of the cynicism is that way too much is expected of statecraft in the first place. Go figure, in a country founded on a Manifest Destiny.
Zrim
Agreed. The problem with the current group of third parties is they tend to be narrowly defined one-issue parties, led by rather zealous ideologues, who tend to surround themselves with a few loyal sycophants. That's what gives them the "kook" feel.
To succeed, a viable third party needs a fuller-orbed platform (beyond their key issue) and then nominate a candidate with a decent executive resume. A well-intended business owner, community activist, or college professor is simply not going to get a hearing beyond their local community. But if a well-intended business owner, activist, professor (etc.), was willing to enter public service in their community, work hard and pay their dues, they just might begin a movement, and earn a better resume.
I guess what I am saying is that in order not to be seen as kooks, third parties need to go about this in a smarter way. I think they ought to develop on a local level with local issues, and then take the time to develop candidates, and refine their message, before competing on a national level.
Zrim:
You hit the nail on the head. There's a reason why I'm not postmillennial. Government is a common grace institution with very a limited purpose (to keep the peace and to keep us from killing each other). It is truly a blessing that in the providence of God we live in a land where God's common grace has been very evident (our freedom and prosperity). This is not the fruit of our form of government, or of our national calling to further God's kingdom. Rather the blessings we do have are a gift from the hand of a gracious God and we owe him our deepest gratitude! I for one, don't appreciate enough the freedom I have to make these posts and criticize Caesar.
Obama, despite deciding not to make race an issue, is rather obsessed with it in his private life. He discontinued contact with his half-brother because he wasn't concerned enough with his black roots.