Experience and politics
Wizbang has an interesting post about how Hillary Clinton has done nothing that distinguishes her and makes here eligible for consideration for the presidency. He broadens this post to include more Democrats:
Let me first note that it is impossible to read this post without thinking about the current president. Is it possible that Republicans were so blinded by alleged charisma and familial connections in 2000 that they couldn't see the utter lack of substance?
More importantly, though, I'm not sure what value experience is in the political realm. When I vote, I'm looking for people who have shown that they think clearly and deeply about important issues, have a certain basic set of convictions that I share, and are reasonably knowledgeable about the problems and issues confronting the United States.
And I think that voters share this view. In Al Gore, the electorate had one of the most experienced and best candidates for president in this century (with the possible exception of George H.W. Bush and Herbert Hoover) and they turned him down (well, they really didn't, but you know what I mean).
Oscar Wilde (I think) once said something to the effect of, "Politics is the one profession where experience is counted as a hindrance and not a help." Kerry - although he allegedly did nothing in the Senate - found himself being attacked on the basis of his record and experience.
What ultimately matters, I think, in our elections is what kind of person the candidate is not what they've done in the past. This explains, to a "t", the success of President Bush. We can debate whether this is a good thing or not, but I think it is an accurate characterization of the nature of politics, especially presidential elections, in the United States.
So, where are the Democratic leaders who have actually DONE anything? Who have a record of achievements and successes that demonstrate that they can actually get things done? Or is it what I've always suspected -- they are so blinded by style, they can't see the utter lack of substance?
Let me first note that it is impossible to read this post without thinking about the current president. Is it possible that Republicans were so blinded by alleged charisma and familial connections in 2000 that they couldn't see the utter lack of substance?
More importantly, though, I'm not sure what value experience is in the political realm. When I vote, I'm looking for people who have shown that they think clearly and deeply about important issues, have a certain basic set of convictions that I share, and are reasonably knowledgeable about the problems and issues confronting the United States.
And I think that voters share this view. In Al Gore, the electorate had one of the most experienced and best candidates for president in this century (with the possible exception of George H.W. Bush and Herbert Hoover) and they turned him down (well, they really didn't, but you know what I mean).
Oscar Wilde (I think) once said something to the effect of, "Politics is the one profession where experience is counted as a hindrance and not a help." Kerry - although he allegedly did nothing in the Senate - found himself being attacked on the basis of his record and experience.
What ultimately matters, I think, in our elections is what kind of person the candidate is not what they've done in the past. This explains, to a "t", the success of President Bush. We can debate whether this is a good thing or not, but I think it is an accurate characterization of the nature of politics, especially presidential elections, in the United States.
posted by Jesse Zink at 10:47 AM Permalink
|
<< Home