Politician Isn’t a Bad Word
It’s sad that it’s come to this.
The 2016 presidential election is still over a year away, but the candidates vying for the nomination of each major party have gone through what has been anything but a typical primary process.
It’s the election year of the anti-politician. This phenomenon is restricted to the Republican side, because although Bernie Sanders, an Independent running for the Democratic nomination, has gained overwhelming grassroots support, he differs from the Republican Party’s anti-establishment candidates because he has dedicated nearly his entire adult life to public service.
Republican candidates Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson, each of whom have led careers in the private sector, use the term politician with disdain. They have touted their lack of any political experience whatsoever not only as a positive quality, but actually as a qualification for the most powerful political position in the free world. Certainly the irony can’t be lost on everybody, but Fiorina, Carson, and Trump have topped every recent national poll because of this anti-politician appeal. And it’s not a good thing.
Sure, its refreshing to hear someone speak whose entire career hasn’t been spent catering to wealthy donors, and to a few it does sound more appealing than seeing a third Bush or a second Clinton in the White House. But does the mere disdain for familial dynasties and political insiders’ influence warrant such a stark shift toward complete newcomers?
The quick answer: no.
The fact that Ben Carson isn’t a politician does not qualify him to be President of the United States. Yet he hopes to be elected to this political office, and somehow claims that even if elected, he’s not going to be a politician. (Because that’s possible!)
Take the exchange that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie had with Fiorina during the September GOP debate. Christie criticized a lengthy argument between Trump and Fiorina over their business records, saying that the candidates weren’t there to talk up their own private accomplishments. Fiorina shot back at Christie, noting (accurately) that Christie had highlighted his own career as a governor. But the fallacy in Fiorina’s argument lies in the fact that she and Trump were engaging in an irrelevant exchange; Christie’s previous achievements actually do demonstrate the potential he would bring to the Oval Office. The job of the head executive of a state resembles that of the head executive of a nation much more closely than does that of a business executive.
A president has to make on-the-fly decisions while considering the legal, political, economic, geopolitical, and other ramifications that have infinitely more profound impact than those concerning a CEO (though Trump has maintained that he will be “phenomenal” due to his financial achievements and his dexterity in negotiation). Trump and Carson have both admitted to knowing little about foreign policy, suggesting that they’ll learn the details further down the road, or in Trump’s case, simply get the gist and delegate most of the responsibilities to others. But if they don’t know enough about foreign policy now, how can these candidates allow voters to assess their options based on foreign policy? International politics is and always will be an important issue for this nation so long as it is one of the world’s superpowers. But Carson and Trump seem to have forgotten this truth: you can’t delegate the role of Commander in Chief.
I sincerely believe that a Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon and two (more or less) successful businesspeople are capable of understanding the fact that presidents fall into the category of politicians. Yet, they continue to assert their oversimplified prescriptions for fixing this country on this notion that we live in the United States of America, Inc., or that simply being a smart person outweighs the benefit of years of experience.
And herein lies the tragedy of the farce that our democracy has become. Our standards have dropped so low that a complete lack of experience is considered a good thing. The answer isn’t a candidate who isn’t a politician.
The answer lies in our relationship with our government. If this supposed democracy is to function as such, we must hold our elected officials accountable, so that being a political outsider doesn’t have to serve as a positive quality. If the public’s trust in Trump, Fiorina, and Carson demonstrates an extreme form of anti-establishment sentiment, we must revert to the other extreme, and make our politicians accountable enough that we may trust them as many people trust these outsiders. Then voters wouldn’t confuse crucial understanding of government and politics with a downside to any candidate. But for now, let’s just remember that the president isn’t a CEO.