Experience can be a liability, too

Whoever said, “Experience is the best teacher,” probably was not referring to politics.
All too often, we tend to equate political competence with experience. But, in my opinion, political experience is more like political savvy. And when it comes to electing ethical people to public office, political experience can and does often get in the way of honest wholesomeness. Give me a naïve Jefferson Smith any day over any one of the savvy elitists we have in Washington, D.C., these days.
Truth be told, there are far too many Joseph Paines in office and precious few Jeff Smiths out there to challenge them; too many career politicians with the experience to know how to fool enough of us today, tomorrow and next election.
Why is it that so many media pundits, politicians and even voters place such great weight on political experience in a candidate?
Dwight D. Eisenhower did not exactly have the political experience by today’s standards to qualify as a viable candidate for President of the United States. Yet, he served two terms and presided over a period of unprecedented social and economic growth. This is because “Ike” had the executive experience to get the job done as commander-in-chief. After all, he commanded Allied Forces in the European Theater of World War II and was the mastermind behind the offensive known as “Operation: Overlord,” or the Normandy invasion.
Compare Ike’s resume to that of current President Barack Obama, whose executive experience prior to his election to the presidency was nill. But even in his relatively short career as a politician, Obama has gained more political experience than Ike ever had. Barry went from the Illinois state senate to the U.S. Senate to the White House in just six years. He has worked his way up the political ladder and through the ranks the way a career politician usually does.
So, when we talk about the experience of an elected official, it can either be positive or negative. Skilled, practical experience applied from one craft to another is one thing, but experience using political savvy to navigate through the waters of corruption without tipping over your canoe is something else. I consider the latter to be a liability more than an asset in politicians. The more skilled they are in politics, the more dangerous they become.
We hear the political advertisements all the time touting a candidate’s experience and his or her ability to “deliver” for his or her constituents. Take U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, as an example. Here’s a guy running for his fifth term in the U.S. Senate. Originally elected to the Senate in 1986 Reid has spent 24 years on that side of Capitol Hill. He also spent several years before that as a U.S. Representative on the House side. Through the decades, Reid has indeed delivered for Nevada. He is particularly skilled at securing pork for his state, and especially for his home district of Southern Nevada and Las Vegas.
But during those years of wheeling and dealing Reid was evidently prepping himself for party advancement. When former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was defeated in 2004 Reid had been quietly positioning himself in the party to be the logical successor to that partisan post.
He had worked his way up to Senate Minority Whip at the time Daschle was ousted. Then, in 2006, when the Democrats took control of both the House and Senate, Reid, as acting Senate Minority Leader, became the new Senate Majority Leader, which is arguably the third most powerful political position in Washington, D.C., behind the President of the United States and the House Speaker. (Sorry, Joe, but the Veep is not that powerful or influential apart from the POTUS.)
Every six years, Sen. Harry Reid is re-elected because he “delivers” for Nevada. Delivers what, though, money? There’s a lot more to representation than securing government pork for your district.
Reid didn’t regard his electorate in 2007 when a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens was considered in Congress. He sided with his party.
Reid didn’t hear the voices of his constituents during the Bush years. While a majority of Nevadans asked for political cooperation in a time of war, Sen. Reid decided follow the commands of party leadership and go on the offensive as the democrats’ noisiest attack dog. He turned up the heat, opposing the POTUS at every turn and given every opportunity. He fought tooth and nail the way a stooge usually does by assaulting the president’s credibility, even his personal character.
Harry Reid has even undermined the efforts of the United States military. He was the one who was infamously quoted as saying “I believe this war (in Iraq) is lost.”
Reid went on to bite at the ankles of the president just the way a political attack dog is expected to. His attacks, in fact, were incessant and unceasing. Every day in the news there seemed to be a new sound bite of Senate Majority Leader Reid directing some negative comment about the war toward the president.
What a coincidence that Sen. Reid hasn’t made one negative peep about the wars on terror in the Middle East since a member of his own party has been in the White House.
Yes, indeed, Sen. Reid has delivered aplenty for Nevada, bribing his district with as much pork as he could wrestle away from Uncle Sam. The more money he figured to get for his state, the more likely his electorate would look the other way with regard to his activities inside the Beltway. Another word for it is “hush money,” a concept the Las Vegas mob and political powers that be in Southern Nevada, like Reid, know very well.
But Sen. Reid is merely a microcosm of the problem that exists across the country. In local, state and national politics, career politicians like Harry Reid abound. Every one of them is angling for position to advance in the political arena. They all want to be adored demagogues that are placed on pedestals and canonized with monuments.
They do what they do not for you and me, but for themselves; to feed their own egos and histrionic narcissism.
Political demagoguery is nothing new. It has existed for millennia, from the very beginning when men and women placed crowns on their heads and proclaimed themselves kings, queens, emperors and empresses, chieftains, Caesars, Khans, Pharoahs and Sultans over others.
Even here in the United States, where monarchies do not exist, demagoguery still does. Ours are elected, though, not anointed. They are better known as career politicians who like referring to their long tenures in office as “a lifetime in public service,” as though this service has come at a great personal sacrifice.
Balderdash.
A perfect example is the late Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy, who relished for years in the perpetuated myth that he was not only a great defender of the poor, but also the last of the legends of Kennedy Camelot. Teddy helped create the welfare state as we know it today. He was behind President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s push for a “Great Society” of progressive socioeconomic egalitarianism.
In his late years, Teddy was heralded as a champion of the less fortunate. Upon his death, thousands of people mourned him with Teddy Bears. Spare me.
Edward Kennedy did what he did for himself; not for anyone else. He was a womanizer, an alcohol abuser, and an irresponsible, spoiled rich beneficiary of the Kennedy Estate and Trust. How many black tie parties did Kennedy attend or host either at Martha’s Vineyard or in Washington, D.C., where the poor and less fortunate were invited? I’m sure he partied hard in honor of them, but I am not aware of any functions he attended in their presence. He was always surrounded by members of the social and/or political elite.
How much caviar did the late, great democratic senator from Massachusetts consume in honor of the poor, hungry and destitute?
America’s career politicians, like the late Edward Kennedy, have feathered for themselves quite comfortable nests through their decades in power. The only sacrifice, perhaps, is a lack of privacy. But then again, demagogues and narcissists relish much more in the attention they get than their privacy. How can they be worshipped by others in private?
Career politicians have built for themselves castles and exclusive, members-only kingdoms in their public arenas of power.
Worst of all, the American people have not only allowed this to happen, we have perpetuated it by continuing to return these ungrateful and expectant demagogues to power.
Thankfully, there is a current movement to end the monopoly that career politicians hold in America’s centers of political power. I’m not talking specifically about the TEA Party; although it is part of this movement. I refer to the general angst and anger among the populace over a government that has become too big and too invasive thanks to the efforts of political demagogues.
There’s no telling how long this sentiment is going to last. The mood of the electorate, after all, is the impetus of changing political winds.
But maybe this year, this time around, the career politicians will get called to the carpet and the demagogues will finally get what’s coming to them.
Abraham Lincoln once said very candidly, yet artfully, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
Hopefully, the year 2010 will be the latter.