According to conventional Republican Party political wisdom, Gov. Mitt Romney, who competed to become the Republican nominee for president in 2008, should be outpacing his rivals this time around by leaps and bounds. Historically, Republicans tend to reward repeat nomination contenders with unbridled party support. But polls that show him garnering only about 23 to 25 percent support, even while being praised as the most plausible candidate in the field to challenge President Obama in 2012, suggest that GOP voters are not yet convinced. They seem intent to finding a more appealing alternative to Romney; and they are wise to keep looking.
Romney represents one of the worst kind of politicians: a political phony. That’s a politician who will do and say anything that he believes will help get him elected. Essentially, such individuals are more likely to rely on poll results over any principle as a compass for what position to take on issues. And in Romney’s case, there is ample evidence of such behavior. Across a wide swath of issues from abortion and gay marriage to climate change and health care, Romney has shifted or completely changed his position when he found it politically advantageous to do so. He’s betting that morphing into a fake ultra conservative -- as opposed to being true to the more moderate conservative he’s been in the past -- will enhance his chances of getting the nomination. But so far, skeptical conservatives aren’t buying his political chameleon act.
George Will, a widely respected conservative columnist, described Romney in a recent column as a “recidivist reviser of his principles.”
In response to a question about whether Romney’s frequent flip-flops hurt him, Brit Hume, a conservative commentator on Fox News, offered the following take: “You are only allowed a certain number of flips before people begin doubting your character, and I think Romney exhausted his quota sometime back.”
When fellow members of one’s own party aren’t even willing to try and rationalize a candidate’s obvious character shortcomings, it suggests a major problem that can‘t be overlooked. The modern characterization for Romney’s position shifts is referred to as flip-flops, an almost euphemistic phrase that doesn’t quite reflect the offense. More aptly described, Romney’s flip-flops are essentially examples of calculated political deception. The tactic assumes, or hopes, voters will simply ignore what’s already been clearly stated on record as long as the altered position is more favorable to theirs.
GOP voters should reject Romney and his deceptive politics, which show him to be leader who can‘t be trusted to stand up for what he believes or be willing to take an unpopular position on difficult issues. Neither are the kind of character shortcomings we want in a leader, especially a president.
What’s really unfortunate is that, on paper, Romney has a fairly impressive resume for the office he aspires to: a former governor with a respectable record, notable successes as a businessman, not to mention being articulate and well-versed on the issues. But of course all of his appealing attributes are undermined by the highly undesirable candidate he has chosen to turn himself into for a shot at the presidency.
Good leaders must always be mindful and respectful of the views of their constituency, but they must also have the fortitude and principled conviction to make tough decisions as a duly elected representative of the people. Taking into account the viewed expressed in polls in one thing; using them as the basis for governing is another. Romney has clearly shown he would do the latter. The Republican Party and GOP voters can do better in choosing a candidate to represent them, and they should keep looking until they find one.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Myth of Electing a “Non-Politician”
A recent NBC / Wall Street Journal poll shows candidate Herman Cain pulling ahead of the other challengers in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Cain was the preferred choice among 27 percent of GOP primary voters. Behind Cain was Gov. Mitt Romney at 23 percent and Gov. Rick Perry at 16 percent.
Follow-up interviews revealed that one of the reasons behind Cain’s unexpected rise in the polls was his lack of political experience. Poll respondents said they liked that he was not politician and comes across as direct and “real.” Such sentiments are common from voters who often get fed up with the current political class and start hungering for a “non-politician” to emerge as a panacea for fixing what’s wrong in Washington. Fortunately, voters' ill-advised flirtation with this fantasy usually fades and they that rightly end up supporting a candidate with some measure of political experience.
While the anti-politician fervor is understandable -- particularly given the state of our current political climate -- the rationale for the “elect a non-politician” mindset is actually inherently illogical. The thinking goes like this: Voters don’t like how the current “experienced” political leaders have run government, so they conclude that the answer is to elect much less experienced individuals to do the job. In other words, voters are inclined to believe that someone with no political experience will be able to somehow do what they believe experienced politicians could not. Does that make sense? Clearly it doesn’t, and the following two political realities explain why:
Reality 1: The political environment is a unique animal, which requires a considerable degree of skill and know-how to successfully navigate its often treacherous waters. A president has to have a keen understanding of the legislative process in order to successfully get things done. That includes working with a fractious Congress comprised of individuals with disparate regional interests; having the skills to build the necessary political consensus to advance important legislation; dealing with a relentless conflict-driven media; and trying to constantly appease the demands of an often fickle and uniformed public. Even the most skilled and politically adept politicians find managing these tasks daunting. So, why would voters naively expect individuals with no knowledge of the political process to do better?
While the idea behind electing non-politicians lacks merit on it face, there are also actual political examples where this has already been tried and failed. Former Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jesse Ventura of Minnesota both won election as anti-establishment “non-politicians” who lacked political experience but supposedly possessed the right skills to rid the system of partisan gridlock and make government work for the people. But despite their best efforts, both leaders left office viewed largely as failed leaders who were unable to deliver on their promise to fix the system.
Reality 2: Leaders have to understand a system before they can have any hope of reforming it, which is something political novices lack. Sure, non-politicians may have ample civic-minded enthusiasm and can successfully appeal to popular sentiment about needed changes, but without an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of the process and the system, they are doomed to failure.
So, let’s stop entertaining this fantasy that non-politicians can be saviors for the ills of our broken government. Real world business experience, as Cain possesses, can certainly be as asset in government leadership, but it is by no means a substitute for the knowledge and understanding of the political process and governing that can only be gained from actual elected office training.
At a time when our country is confronting historic economic challenges, the last thing we need is some inexperienced populist without a clue about how to navigate within the current political system. Voters may not like the way our government works, but successfully changing it will always require electing someone who understands how it operates. Cain, who has zero elected office experience, is not the candidate for the job.
Follow-up interviews revealed that one of the reasons behind Cain’s unexpected rise in the polls was his lack of political experience. Poll respondents said they liked that he was not politician and comes across as direct and “real.” Such sentiments are common from voters who often get fed up with the current political class and start hungering for a “non-politician” to emerge as a panacea for fixing what’s wrong in Washington. Fortunately, voters' ill-advised flirtation with this fantasy usually fades and they that rightly end up supporting a candidate with some measure of political experience.
While the anti-politician fervor is understandable -- particularly given the state of our current political climate -- the rationale for the “elect a non-politician” mindset is actually inherently illogical. The thinking goes like this: Voters don’t like how the current “experienced” political leaders have run government, so they conclude that the answer is to elect much less experienced individuals to do the job. In other words, voters are inclined to believe that someone with no political experience will be able to somehow do what they believe experienced politicians could not. Does that make sense? Clearly it doesn’t, and the following two political realities explain why:
Reality 1: The political environment is a unique animal, which requires a considerable degree of skill and know-how to successfully navigate its often treacherous waters. A president has to have a keen understanding of the legislative process in order to successfully get things done. That includes working with a fractious Congress comprised of individuals with disparate regional interests; having the skills to build the necessary political consensus to advance important legislation; dealing with a relentless conflict-driven media; and trying to constantly appease the demands of an often fickle and uniformed public. Even the most skilled and politically adept politicians find managing these tasks daunting. So, why would voters naively expect individuals with no knowledge of the political process to do better?
While the idea behind electing non-politicians lacks merit on it face, there are also actual political examples where this has already been tried and failed. Former Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jesse Ventura of Minnesota both won election as anti-establishment “non-politicians” who lacked political experience but supposedly possessed the right skills to rid the system of partisan gridlock and make government work for the people. But despite their best efforts, both leaders left office viewed largely as failed leaders who were unable to deliver on their promise to fix the system.
Reality 2: Leaders have to understand a system before they can have any hope of reforming it, which is something political novices lack. Sure, non-politicians may have ample civic-minded enthusiasm and can successfully appeal to popular sentiment about needed changes, but without an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of the process and the system, they are doomed to failure.
So, let’s stop entertaining this fantasy that non-politicians can be saviors for the ills of our broken government. Real world business experience, as Cain possesses, can certainly be as asset in government leadership, but it is by no means a substitute for the knowledge and understanding of the political process and governing that can only be gained from actual elected office training.
At a time when our country is confronting historic economic challenges, the last thing we need is some inexperienced populist without a clue about how to navigate within the current political system. Voters may not like the way our government works, but successfully changing it will always require electing someone who understands how it operates. Cain, who has zero elected office experience, is not the candidate for the job.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Pundits should stop making premature election predictions
In late August, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote a piece practically anointing Gov. Rick Perry as “possibly our next president.“ In his argument, he makes reference to the “slew of polls showing Gov. Rick Perry of Texas surging to double-digit national leads.” He went on to analyze why Perry’s brand of politics was more appealing to today’s Republican Party, citing electoral trends and shifts in voter attitudes that make him a credible contender in 2012.
The problem with his analysis -- just one month later -- is that it was extremely premature. Perry’s uneven performances in Republican debates, his uncompromisingly blunt views on issues such as Social Security -- which he maligns as a ponzi scheme, and climate change, which he suggests is a scientific hoax -- have weakened his so-called front-runner status. Some Republicans are now even questioning his electability, a point that was made all the more clear with candidate Herman Cain’s runaway victory in the recent Florida straw poll. Cain garnered 37.1% support to Perry’s 15.4%. So much for Perry being dubbed the anointed one.
So why did Brooks, one the most thoughtful op-ed writers around today, make such premature claims about a candidate untested on the national stage? Well, he did what too many members of today’s chattering class tend to do: fail to appreciate the uncertain and ever-changing nature of politics. If we know anything about polls, we know that they can change in an instant, especially this far out from an election. But pundits often ignore that reality, offering short-sighted “perspectives of the moment” as if political conditions and events remain constant.
Now that Perry appears more like a political liability than an asset for the Republican Party, Brooks would have been wise to include a few caveats in his article trumpeting Perry's presidential election potential. After all, it wasn’t long ago that Donald Trump soared to the top of the polls among the Republican presidential contenders, only to see his standing and appeal quickly fade once voters got a chance to hear what he had to say. This lesson was certainly recent enough to serve as a cautionary tale for rushing to judgment too quickly. Also, a look back at the 2008 Republican primary, which was rife with erroneous predictions about presumed frontrunners and likely nominees, should be enough to chasten any pundit from speaking with certainty about the likely primary outcome.
Perry’s recent fall from grace by no means suggests he’s out of the running for the Republican nomination. His political fortunes could just as easily rise again should he alter his message and tone to appeal to those primary voters who now view him with skepticism. At least I am willing to wisely hedge on the outcome, acknowledging the possibility for a Perry rebound. Brooks could have avoided having egg on his face had he offered a perspective on Perry that did the same.
The problem with his analysis -- just one month later -- is that it was extremely premature. Perry’s uneven performances in Republican debates, his uncompromisingly blunt views on issues such as Social Security -- which he maligns as a ponzi scheme, and climate change, which he suggests is a scientific hoax -- have weakened his so-called front-runner status. Some Republicans are now even questioning his electability, a point that was made all the more clear with candidate Herman Cain’s runaway victory in the recent Florida straw poll. Cain garnered 37.1% support to Perry’s 15.4%. So much for Perry being dubbed the anointed one.
So why did Brooks, one the most thoughtful op-ed writers around today, make such premature claims about a candidate untested on the national stage? Well, he did what too many members of today’s chattering class tend to do: fail to appreciate the uncertain and ever-changing nature of politics. If we know anything about polls, we know that they can change in an instant, especially this far out from an election. But pundits often ignore that reality, offering short-sighted “perspectives of the moment” as if political conditions and events remain constant.
Now that Perry appears more like a political liability than an asset for the Republican Party, Brooks would have been wise to include a few caveats in his article trumpeting Perry's presidential election potential. After all, it wasn’t long ago that Donald Trump soared to the top of the polls among the Republican presidential contenders, only to see his standing and appeal quickly fade once voters got a chance to hear what he had to say. This lesson was certainly recent enough to serve as a cautionary tale for rushing to judgment too quickly. Also, a look back at the 2008 Republican primary, which was rife with erroneous predictions about presumed frontrunners and likely nominees, should be enough to chasten any pundit from speaking with certainty about the likely primary outcome.
Perry’s recent fall from grace by no means suggests he’s out of the running for the Republican nomination. His political fortunes could just as easily rise again should he alter his message and tone to appeal to those primary voters who now view him with skepticism. At least I am willing to wisely hedge on the outcome, acknowledging the possibility for a Perry rebound. Brooks could have avoided having egg on his face had he offered a perspective on Perry that did the same.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Time to Wise up on Presidential Elections
Our quadrennial U.S. presidential election cycles are rather interesting events. They represent a moment in American civil engagement when voters swoon at the idealized fantasy that a better leader is looming out there just a ballot box vote away. Voters seem to get intoxicated by the pageantry, arousing stump speeches and saturation media coverage. But while these elections are vital to our Constitutional democracy, there are a few cautionary points voters should heed before getting sweep away in the spectacle and hype of the presidential campaign season:
Stop yearning for the next great political messiah -
The public needs to stop building presidents up to be more than what they are, which are public servants hired to do a job. Furthermore, political leaders aren’t omniscient beings endowed with powers that enable them to wave magic wands that instantly fix all the nation’s problems. We also don’t live in a dictatorship, so the president isn’t able to simply do what he wants at will. He’s only one person who must contend with an established political system, which includes a coequal branch of government (the U.S. Congress) that he must navigate and collaborate with in order to advance his agenda. Moreover, the president, no matter how well-intentioned or politically gifted, is limited in his ability to move his agenda due to the constraints of the legislative process, which can be extremely difficult.
Beware false political prophets -
These are the White House aspirants who boldly claim to possess the requisite skills and experience needed to solve all our problems. Voters of course cheer them on freely, enthusiastically drinking the Kool-Aid these charlatans peddle. But what voters fail to grasp while entranced in the intoxicating haze of scripted speeches and poll-tested campaign rhetoric is that there is a fundamental difference between “campaigning” and “governing.” As candidates vying to win their way into elected office, it’s easy to promise voters the moon on the campaign trail and make unrealistic assertions about what they can do once in office. Also, candidates are completely unburdened by having to make the tough decisions officeholders confronting real problems have to make everyday.
One reason high-office contenders get away with telling such fables stems from not usually being held accountable for their fantasy promises or intentions on the campaign trail. If the fables sound credible enough such as promising to fix Medicare and Social Security or easily creating millions of new jobs, candidates get the benefit of the doubt from voters who are often less concerned about the specific details no matter how impractical the claims may be.
In truth, if our country’s problems were as easy to fix as some candidates would naively have voters believe, wouldn’t they have been resolved already? That’s just something to keep in mind the next time you hear candidates promising something that seems too good to be true.
Change for change sake is seldom a good idea -
Contrary to popular belief, change isn’t always good. When election-year emotions and passions are running high, voters can get fired up, sometimes charging to the polls with a throw-the-bums-out mindset. And while there are many political bums that need to be thrown out of office from time to time, voters need to be careful that they are not hastily throwing in a new set of bums to replace those just booted. Well that‘s exactly what happened in the 2010 elections when voters stormed to the polls on a wave of so-called anger to throw out the Democrats who they replaced with band of anti-government conservative extremists called the Tea Party.
The prolonged debt-ceiling crisis was dragged out in large measure because Tea Party members in the U.S. House of Representatives stubbornly refused to compromise, choosing instead to risk bringing our nation’s economy, which is already on shaky legs, to the brink of collapse. But such behavior was reasonably predictable given some of the extremist rhetoric many of these candidates espoused during the 2010 campaign. True, the public wisely rejected many of these candidates as not sufficiently qualified to hold elected office, but they also unwisely voted a number of them into office, and now we see the result.
Voter anger directed at our dysfunctional political process is fine, but it makes no sense to exacerbate the problem by electing hyper-partisan leaders who make matters worse.
This is equally important when voters cast their votes for president. Voters should avoid making a partisan-fueled, knee-jerk decision that could have lasting consequences. Vote wisely, but more importantly, have realistic expectations for the candidate you choose.
Stop yearning for the next great political messiah -
The public needs to stop building presidents up to be more than what they are, which are public servants hired to do a job. Furthermore, political leaders aren’t omniscient beings endowed with powers that enable them to wave magic wands that instantly fix all the nation’s problems. We also don’t live in a dictatorship, so the president isn’t able to simply do what he wants at will. He’s only one person who must contend with an established political system, which includes a coequal branch of government (the U.S. Congress) that he must navigate and collaborate with in order to advance his agenda. Moreover, the president, no matter how well-intentioned or politically gifted, is limited in his ability to move his agenda due to the constraints of the legislative process, which can be extremely difficult.
Beware false political prophets -
These are the White House aspirants who boldly claim to possess the requisite skills and experience needed to solve all our problems. Voters of course cheer them on freely, enthusiastically drinking the Kool-Aid these charlatans peddle. But what voters fail to grasp while entranced in the intoxicating haze of scripted speeches and poll-tested campaign rhetoric is that there is a fundamental difference between “campaigning” and “governing.” As candidates vying to win their way into elected office, it’s easy to promise voters the moon on the campaign trail and make unrealistic assertions about what they can do once in office. Also, candidates are completely unburdened by having to make the tough decisions officeholders confronting real problems have to make everyday.
One reason high-office contenders get away with telling such fables stems from not usually being held accountable for their fantasy promises or intentions on the campaign trail. If the fables sound credible enough such as promising to fix Medicare and Social Security or easily creating millions of new jobs, candidates get the benefit of the doubt from voters who are often less concerned about the specific details no matter how impractical the claims may be.
In truth, if our country’s problems were as easy to fix as some candidates would naively have voters believe, wouldn’t they have been resolved already? That’s just something to keep in mind the next time you hear candidates promising something that seems too good to be true.
Change for change sake is seldom a good idea -
Contrary to popular belief, change isn’t always good. When election-year emotions and passions are running high, voters can get fired up, sometimes charging to the polls with a throw-the-bums-out mindset. And while there are many political bums that need to be thrown out of office from time to time, voters need to be careful that they are not hastily throwing in a new set of bums to replace those just booted. Well that‘s exactly what happened in the 2010 elections when voters stormed to the polls on a wave of so-called anger to throw out the Democrats who they replaced with band of anti-government conservative extremists called the Tea Party.
The prolonged debt-ceiling crisis was dragged out in large measure because Tea Party members in the U.S. House of Representatives stubbornly refused to compromise, choosing instead to risk bringing our nation’s economy, which is already on shaky legs, to the brink of collapse. But such behavior was reasonably predictable given some of the extremist rhetoric many of these candidates espoused during the 2010 campaign. True, the public wisely rejected many of these candidates as not sufficiently qualified to hold elected office, but they also unwisely voted a number of them into office, and now we see the result.
Voter anger directed at our dysfunctional political process is fine, but it makes no sense to exacerbate the problem by electing hyper-partisan leaders who make matters worse.
This is equally important when voters cast their votes for president. Voters should avoid making a partisan-fueled, knee-jerk decision that could have lasting consequences. Vote wisely, but more importantly, have realistic expectations for the candidate you choose.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
The Problem of Celebrity
As Kim Kardashian prepares for her nuptials to NBA cutie Kris Humphries, and buzz about Jennifer Lopez’s recent divorce continues to adorn grocery store aisles everywhere,
one question comes to mind:
one question comes to mind:
Why are people so enthralled with the personal lives of celebrities?
I attribute this obsession on the part of the public to what I call “The Problem of Celebrity.” Our society is obsessed with people who have achieved money, success and extraordinary fame. We live vicariously through them. Look no further than the recent fanfare following the sudden death of Amy Winehouse, the reemergence and popularity of R&B singer Chris Brown following his domestic abuse incident, and the distant but not forgotten sex scandal involving golfer Tiger Woods.
Our daily news is an usual blend of savvy headlines like: “President Obama makes sharp remarks about the debt ceiling standoff....” “The victims of Norway are gone but not forgotten....” and “Kim Kardashian finally picks her wedding dress.” You can't be serious.
Who’s to blame for this moronic blend of substantive news and sorority girl antics?
The public? The media? Or celebrities? Hold that thought.
In addition to the denigration of news in the U.S., it’s also a crude reality that people set higher standards for celebrities than they do for themselves. What happens when and if our beloved Kim Kardashian cheats on her reality TV husband? Will we continue to worship her? Or will we knock her off her tinsel town pedestal and treat her with the same disdain as Arnold Schwarzenegger? Again, hold that thought.
The public is notorious for boycotting celebrities when scandals break. We are quick to pass judgment and stop patronizing someone if we get wind they did something we don’t approve of. Because celebrities exhibit a talent, skill or image the everyday Joe or Joanna doesn’t possess, we make modern-day idols out of them and come short of deeming them superhuman.
Truth is, people feel comfortable playing judge in the lives of celebrities because we have the luxury of seeing their lives and indiscretions played out for the world to see, while our own lives remain private and unbroadcasted. When you have that kind of access and anonymity coupled into one, people feel empowered, and exploit that power to the Nth degree.
Because celebrities have achieved in life what many only dream of, people expect them to be dreamlike in every way. Hence, the constant fanfare and never ending obsession. People feel the need to love everything about a celebrity in order to support them because we expect them to do something we're incapable of: attain perfection.
We expect celebrities to live up to the hype we’ve created for them.
And we throw tantrums when they don’t. The moment our expectations don’t materialize, we are forced to face the reality that the people we’ve been idolizing are just that: people. Not immortal super heroes, but rather everyday people just like us who garner public attention through the machinery of marketing, distribution and media.
When faced with this reality, people become disgruntled. Rather than blame ourselves for having unfair and unrealistic expectations, we fault celebrities for not fulfilling our dreams. So who’s the real culprit: the public, the media or celebrities? I'll let you answer that.
Until people accept the fact that celebrities are not perfect, but just as flawed as we are,
“The Problem of Celebrity” will continue to plague us.
“The Problem of Celebrity” will continue to plague us.
And until the public takes more of an interest in news that actually matters, rather than how Kim Kardashian will look in her wedding dress, we’ll continue to be bombarded with more dense reality television.
Until then, it’s only downhill from here. -v7
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)