Sunday, October 15, 2006
Professionalism
Suppose you needed some work done on your house and you needed an engineer. After checking around for a good one, you ended up landing on a guy who sounded like the ultimate engineer:
Both his father and grandfather before him were engineers. So were his brothers. His mother, while not an engineer, was a math professor. In high school, he had volunteered many weekends and holidays to work building Habitat for Humanity houses so he could learn hands on about structural engineering. In college, he graduated top of his class and went on to get his PhD before launching a successful structural engineering career.
So, would you look at this guy and say "Oh, I don't want that guy. He's never done anything but engineering his whole life. He's never had a real job. Where's his real world experience?"
Yet people do exactly that in the political realm. Any suggestion that a candidate is a "professional politician" is enough to elicit broad sneers from supporters and opponents alike.
OK, I have a bias. I worked in paid professional politics for over 15 years. So nothing bothers me quite so much as people looking down their noses at electoral politicians who have a lot of experience in the political world.
After all, in Canada and Britain, diplomats are usually professionals. Union negotiators are often professionals. Lawyers are professionals. Yet the art and science of balancing competing public needs is somehow a task we think is best left to amateurs.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think every politician should be a long-time political hack. Given the diversity of things a political caucus has to deal with, there is plenty of room for university professors, business owners, educators, doctors and as well as regular, salt-of-the-earth men and women of the people. Governments and oppositions need all those perspectives to function well.
But none of this should suggest that long-time experience in politics should somehow be a disqualification from office. On the contrary, the job of being a political representative requires skill and practice. Most candidates who come from other backgrounds don't have those skills at first. They frequently screw things up in the beginning by trying to reinvent the wheel or else they become completely dependent on their paid staff who do have the experience to know what they're doing.
Wouldn't it be better to elect a representative who actually knew what he was doing and could handle the job from Day One?
Some of the finest, most technically perfect politicians I've ever encountered have been from the "boy wonder / girl wonder" category. Young people, often fresh out of college who have worked on a dozen campaigns in their short lives and whose only work experience may have been working as a politician's constituency assistant, often have a better, more intutitive grasp of what it takes to be a good representative than 50 year old "pillar of the community" types.
The kid wonder types, if they were paying attention in the other campaigns they worked on, don't need to be told about the importance of old-school door-knocking (older candidates often lack the physical energy to go out and meet a zillion people). They don't need to be told about the importance of building a personal network in the constituency and listening to it. Perhaps most importantly, the young turks have a better eye for hiring competent staff; after all, they were probably doing those jobs themselves recently.
Another crucial aspect to the quality of such candidates is that they have no option but to do a good job. The 50 year old guy can say "oh well, I can always go back to selling real estate if this doesn't work out." The 25 year old politician, on the other hand, is staring at the prospect of a stint at McDonalds if he screws up his political career.
It's like raising up a racing hound or training an elite Olympic athelete. Get 'em young and don't let them think about anything else.
So the next time a baby-faced political candidate runs in your area, don't write him off. By voting for a candidate like that you may be making an investment in the best political representative you've ever had.
posted by The Propagandist @ 10:39 AM,
6 Comments:
-
At 10:13 AM,
Library Mama said...
-
You seem to be making the assumption that a good campaigner makes a good representative.
'Tis not always the case. -
At 10:08 PM,
X said...
-
Well, there are some good examples about good campaigners makes good politicians (regardless if I agree with their politics or not.) Here is a list:
Brian Mulroney
Jean Chretien
Jim Prentice
Scott Brison
John Baird
Tom Lukiwski
....etc.
There are some bad ones, but I can't really think of any off top of my head. -
At 10:36 AM,
said...
-
This just may be one of my favorite commentaries I have read in a very long time. I couldn't agree more.
-
At 11:18 AM,
Bathroom Hippo said...
-
Jean Chretien was a good campaigner?
All I know is we in America hated the bastard with a passion. Don't know if he was a good campaigner or not though? -
At 9:36 PM,
The Propagandist said...
-
As I recall, only the Republicans hated Chretien. The Clinton Whitehouse gave him lots of love.
Chretien was a corrupt old bastard who never really achieved anything in his entire time in office...but yes he certainly knew his politics. He was, personally, physically, a tireless old school campaigner. When it came to the bigger picture, he was an acute tactician. To our shame, we Conservatives never defeated him. He deserves the respect due to a worthy adversary. -
At 7:23 PM,
X said...
-
So, who is your pick for the Liberal leadership?
Looks like it will be either Dion or Rae.
