The American political system is broken if the best and brightest among those who are interested in public service aren’t elected — and often don’t even seek — political office.
The system has been malfunctioning for years because money has become increasingly important. The cost of political campaigns has soared. So has the average net wealth of our representatives in the U.S. Congress.
While the power of wealthy ex-business executives in government has grown (and we see where that has gotten us), talented people from all walks of life are on the sidelines. Many can’t afford a political campaign. Others are incapable of raising the money they need from prospective donors, many of whom have self-interested agendas that clash with what’s best for society at large.
The advantage of the moneyed interests has gotten worse thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court as I explained in this blog that I wrote this past June. Our democracy is in danger thanks to our lax campaign finance laws as I explained in other blogs I wrote on our flawed political system a few months ago, including this blog on sneaky billionaires and this blog on money’s impact in politics.
The importance of money is a crucial factor in why the best and the brightest don’t get elected, but the Republicans and Democrats have made it worse through sheer idiocy.
The Republican voters are to blame for the Republicans’ problems. They insist on nominating the most conservative candidate possible regardless of their choice’s qualifications, temperament, and ability to play well with others. Instead, they seem intent on nominating the angriest candidates and those who have the most contempt for government.
The Democrats’ problem is the politicians in the Democratic Party, not the voters. Democratic politicians are in a word, wimps. Their argument in states with competitive elections is basically “we’re common sense mainstream conservatives and Republicans are extreme out-of-the-mainstream conservatives.”
Democrats rarely articulate a vision for the future, try not to propose specific policy solutions to serious problems, and focus on accusing Republicans of wanting to tear down popular programs. They’re often right about the Republicans’ objectives, but arguing that the status quo should be protected rather than proposing improvements is politically myopic.
The Democrats’ flaws are on full display in the Senate election of 2014. Currently, the Democrats have a 55-45 edge in the U.S. Senate if you include the two independents who regularly side with the Dems on most major issues as Democrats. On Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2014, virtually every political prognosticator expects Republicans to easily win Senate seats currently held by Democrats in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia.
The GOP needs to win three more seats to become the majority in the U.S. Senate. The crucial elections are for Senate seats currently held by Democrats in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, and Louisiana and Senate seats currently held by Republicans in Georgia, Kansas, and Kentucky. There is no Democratic candidate in Kansas, the Dem candidate in Iowa is Congressman Bruce Braley, and the other six Democratic candidates are children of politicians who are famous in their states. They are:
* Alaska: Incumbent senator Mark Begich is the son of Nick Begich, who was Alaska’s only congressman in the early 1970s before he was killed in a plane crash at age 40.
* Arkansas: Senator Mark Pryor is the son of David Pryor, 80, who was the governor of Arkansas and one of its two senators from 1975 to 1997.
* Colorado: Senator Mark Udall is the son of the late Morris Udall, a congressman from neighboring Arizona from 1961 to 1991 and the runner-up to Jimmy Carter in the 1976 Democratic presidential primary.
* Louisiana: Senator Mary Landrieu is the daughter of Moon Landrieu, 84, the mayor of New Orleans from 1970 to 1978.
* Georgia: Michelle Nunn is the daughter of Sam Nunn, 76, a senator from Georgia from 1972 to 1997.
* Kentucky: Alison Lundergan Grimes is the daughter of Jerry Lundergan, the former chairperson of Kentucky’s Democratic Party.
Does anyone with any brain matter think that the best Democratic candidate for senator in six of the seven crucial contests is a child of a locally famous politician? I sure don’t. I think that the American people need public servants who have an understanding of the problems that millions of us face every day. These six candidates don’t have the background to understand and, as far as I can tell, are more attuned to the needs of the political and economic elite than our needs.
But Democratic politicians don’t think like the rest of us. That may be why they are constantly trying to fix primaries by doing everything they can to discourage talented outsiders from running for office. Republicans are far more likely to have heated primaries where ideas are discussed, while Democrats are far more likely to have an uncontested primary and a nominee who isn’t battle-tested and is unprepared for a general election as well as office.
Democratic politicians apparently want voters to base their decisions on a candidate’s personality and their comfort with a well-known family and they clearly think that children of famous ex-politicians are more likely to be elected. This article in The Rothenberg Political Report details the flaws in that outmoded thinking.
“We’re campaigning for Mark because everybody likes mamas and daddies,” Mark Pryor’s Mommy Barbara said, according to the article. Stuart Rothenberg disagrees. He reported that ideology is far more important than it used to be and family connections are far less important.
“David and Barbara Pryor aren’t likely to get many votes for their son,” wrote Rothenberg. “Not this year, at least.” And, lo and behold, Mark Pryor is getting his rear end kicked, according to one poll after another.
Democrats NEED to stop relying on their Daddies to attain and retain political office. They need to have heated primaries where the best and the brightest debate ideas and solutions to major problems.
And WE Americans need public servants who are more interested in solving problems than trying to extend their families’ political power for another six or more years.
|