Nowhere is this more apparent than in Presidential elections. Every election cycle, there is always at least one candidate who comes out of nowhere with basically zero political experience, and there are always a bunch of conservatives who think that's just fine and dandy, because they ran a successful business. Which, apparently, we're supposed to believe is the same thing.
Case in point: Little Miss High Horse Chrissy Slatterfield. She goes from bemoaning that her first choice with zero experience, Donald Trump, has bowed out of the race, to championing her new pick with zero political experience, Herman Cain. Why?
Because he's not a politician.Sorry, I call BS. He's running for the highest office in the country. You don't get to do that and say you're not a politician. It would be more accurate to say he's not an experienced politician. Which, of course, begs the question of why he's qualified...
He is a human being capable of understanding what people want and need.Of course, a human being! It's so simple; why didn't anyone ever think of getting one of those?
Cain has beaten cancer, and now he'll take on America's sickness, Obama – and I believe he'll be two for two after the 2012 elections.So wait, now surviving cancer qualifies you to be President? I thought it was having a successful pizza chain. I'm so confused.
Cain said during an interview on Fox, "America is ready for an unconventional candidate. … Whenever people say I don't have a chance because I've never held a public office – well, everybody in D.C. has held public office. How's that working out for you?" Amazingly well said.
What? No it's not! That's like saying we shouldn't pick generals to be Chief of Staff, we should pick kids who are really good at Call of Duty. The fact that Washington is dysfunctional is an example of how screwed up our political system is, not a sign that we need to get politicians out of politics. Politicians are ALWAYS going to be in politics. The better plan is try to have more transparency, more accountability, more youth engagement, more voter turnout, to develop better politicians, not hire random guys off the street.
It's time America had a businessman running this country. If it's not Trump, it might as well be Cain.Um, we had two of those in the last 20 years, and they were both named Bush. Not, as I recall, the conservative movements' favorite pair. Depending on what kind of livelihood you consider to be a "business", you can throw in Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Polk, Harding, Hoover, Truman, and even Carter. The idea that this is such a fresh and exciting concept is, shall we say, not so true. Read some history.
What I see in Cain is that he won't let politics push him around. This is the same thing I saw in Trump. Neither of these men are willing to compromise their integrity or vision, which is exactly what I want in a president. Cain wants to be more than America's president; he wants to be our leader. He wants to set an example and put America back on track.All I'm hearing are random oo-rah platitudes, Chrissy; given how energized you supposedly are about your candidate I find it very interesting you're not bothering to articulate a single element of his so-called "vision." What is it about Cain's vision for America that speaks to you versus, say, Rick Perry's, or Mitt Romney's? Why should Cain get someone's vote? Hello?
It won't be an easy campaign for Cain. He's running against some heavyweights that have the experience in government and know how to play the game. But I hope America can see past all of that. Seasoned politicians are old news, and America is looking for real change. As much as I respect Romney and Gingrich, I have to go with my gut on this one, and it's telling me Cain has what it takes to make America great again.
The fantastic irony in all this, of course, is that in enthusiastically supporting a political novice with little experience and dumping "seasoned politicians" in favor of charismatic promises of "change" Chrissy is basically following in the footsteps of the same voters and candidate she's spent the last three years harping on about.
Is this the sound of the universe laughing at its own joke?
4 comments:
Here's the right wing thinking:
For decades the country has been run by professional politicians and look what a mess they got us into with all their "experience". How can someone with no "experience" but success in business be worse?
There's also a further concept: The left sees the government as a giant nanny dedicated to protecting and caring for its citizens. The right sees the government as a giant business with a monopoly control on certain services (foreign relations, military, etc) but as a business none the less.
Thus the difference in the approach to successful government. For the left, a government is successful depending on how much control it exerts over the lives of its subjects. For the right, a government is successful depending on its profit margin.
That's why the left always looks for career politicians who have never actually accomplished anything without sucking on the government teat while the the right looks for someone who eschews big government but knows how to make a buck.
The exception, of course, being Obama who had relatively little experience, which the right has never stopped carping about. It's hard to tell how much of that animus is based on the perception that his policies haven't worked or that his lack of experience has hurt the country vs. a general lack of good faith from a very riled-up opposition. My 2 cents tends towards the latter.
I think it's both. Obama has had little experience but that little experience was in the public service so he's the worse of both choices!
I don't think any president could have prevented what Bush and Clinton wrought with their irresponsible economic policies but Obama as a polarizing figure has hurt the US' ability to respond to the crisis.
"Here's the right wing thinking:
For decades the country has been run by professional politicians and look what a mess they got us into with all their "experience". How can someone with no "experience" but success in business be worse?"
Over the past 43 years, since the 1968 election, when Richard Nixon punctured the liberal political consensus, conservative Republican presidents have been in power for 28 years, Democrats have been in power for 15 years. And the Democrats in question were Conservative Democrats. (This includes the current occupant of the White House, based on his policy decisions.)
So I guess the conservatives have an aversion to professional politicians because the professional conservative politicians have made such a mess of the country, at least in their opinion.
Post a Comment