In most
professions, the most experienced and successful applicants for a job are chosen
to fill an open position. A job well
done often leads to eventual promotion, as the management of most professions
values good work and a proven track record.
This presidential election cycle, however, has turned this common-sense
approach to filling a position on its head.
Granted, voters have often valued rhetoric and personality, but they
usually choose a candidate with a proven record; 17 presidents have been state
governors, 16 have been US senators, 14 have been Vice President, and 18 have
served as US representatives (nonexclusively). These account for all but 7 of
past US presidents, and most of those had records in the military proving their
courage and ability.
In an
age where information on any candidate is readily available to the vast
majority of voters, it would seem logical that voters would choose the
candidates with the best track record.
However, instead of reading up on each candidate’s past, voters seem to
allow themselves to be convinced by entertaining clips of candidates performing
on variety shows (such as Donald Trump appearing on The Tonight Show with Jimmy
Fallon, or Hillary Clinton on Saturday Night Live) or meme-worthy
soundbites. Although early political
polling is very unreliable (as discussed in my previous post The Rise and Fall of Political Polling),
non-traditional candidates seem to be gaining traction this cycle, based on
their online followings, large volumes of small-value donations, and large
turnouts at campaign events.
So why
are voters increasingly turning to non-politicians to run for office? The availability of information on
politicians appears to be a double edged sword; while their records are easily
referenced, politicians’ failings are also on full display to the voter
populace. With gridlock in Congress at a
historic level and both parties failing to make major progress in their
legislative agendas, voters seem to be sickened by lifelong politicians and
their seeming ineffectiveness. Voters
seem to focus their attention on the portions of the news that display the
slow, prodding nature of politics, and they blame the politicians for this lack
of progress. They disregard the argument
made that politicians with more experience better know how to get things done,
coalescing instead around the opinion that disruptive representatives are what
is needed.
This
trend is nothing new; during midterm election years, history dictates that the
party with a president in office will almost always suffer major losses,
showing peoples’ discontent with whatever regime is currently in place. This phenomenon’s most recent victory was the
Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 2010; many right-wing candidates
(usually known as Tea Party Republicans and members of the House Freedom
Caucus) were swept into office across the country, taking control of the House
away from the Democrats and Obama. Yet
even as the GOP holds an overwhelming House majority, they still seem unable to
accomplish substantive progress. The
Freedom Caucus is so far to the right that they constantly disrupt the GOP’s
agenda, and most recently effectively forced Speaker Boehner to give up his
gavel. Their destructive potential is so
great that Boehner was often forced to collude with Democrats to make a working
majority, the exact opposite of the hopes of Republicans who elected the
Freedom Caucus members with the view of a stronger Republican Party. Viewing this turn of events, along with
practical considerations, should make voters ask themselves: are disruptive politicians
better than their establishment counterparts because they change the status
quo, or are they worse because while they disrupt, they offer no new progress,
but only obstructionism?
No comments:
Post a Comment