One of the memes of this election year is to invoke “career politician” evidently in the hopes of eliciting a pejorative, unthinking, even Pavlovian response.
Political skills and knowledge are important to have to be a successful politician, and those are gained, like in every other profession, by experience, education, practice – and failures.
Failure can work both ways – a person can be ruined by it, or rebuild themselves stronger by it. How many successful businesspeople have said, “I learned more about what not to do and what works by my failures. I took those and from them built a winning model.” How an individual deals with failure tells much about his or her character, oftentimes more than a success reveals.
Some professions appear to be accepting of dilettantes or the inexperienced, but those who do not have the substance to improve or advance are soon left by the wayside in any profession. Most new businesses and endeavors in America fail. The dilettantes are wiped out quickly, while others pick up and start over, taking “fail” as an education better than any college classroom course could teach.
People routinely look for “career surgeons,” “career architects,” “career engineers.” Yet this season, we voters are frequently encouraged to ignore experience and skills in favor of complete neophytes in politics? It rarely works in any other field of endeavor, requiring many other often very artificially supporting factors, so why should we ignore common sense in making decisions about political representation? Fresh faces should always be welcome, but they need to come with solid competencies which can translate well in some measure to the political field.
But lurching to the other extreme is nonsense, too. “Career politicians” should be held to the standards one expects of any other profession: honesty, professionalism, and respect for the clients. If a “career politician” develops a record of abusing the public trust, undisciplined with other people’s money, repeated promotion of personal priorities over public, then the “career politician” should be dumped as fast as any “career building contractor” would be who produces a shoddy product, any “career physician” who misdiagnoses, overcharges or puts his or her patients through unecessary hardship, in favor of a professional who has the skills, the honesty and the discipline to get the job done correctly.
Like “leadership,” “Career Politician” is actually a neutral term. What’s critical is the nature of the PERSON , the quality and relevancy of the skills of the “career politician,” and how responsibly and effectively that person will use those skills and experience.
the Site:Arizona Politics, News, Commentary and Information with a Blatantly Conservative Worldview Presented by an Alliance of Writers
Right on, Wanumba! In fact, lets contrast Two “Career Politicians”. First let’s take a look at Ronald Reagan:
He was a young, good-looking guy who came out west to act, became very active in his union, the Screen Actors Guild. He in fact, was a New Deal Democrat! As the Depression gave way to WW II, which gave way to the threat of Communism, Mr. Reagan’s political values evolved as he saw the reality of human existence. By 1964 he gave a rousing speech at the 1964 GOP convention for Barry Goldwater. Elected twice as Governor, running thrice for President, winning twice. He was first elected to replace a failed liberal, Jimmy Carter and his optimism and confidence in the spirit of the American People led to the greatest economic growth and resurgence of American pride. Certainly, he is considered to be one of the greatest presidents of the 20th Century.
In Reagan’s first term arose a younger pol, considered a war hero, who first ran for office in 1982. He called himself a Reagan Conservative, yet he really preferred to run as a Democrat, but that was extremely foolish in Arizona. He was elected twice to the House and then with his father-in-law’s money ran for the US Senate in 1986 and won. He quickly became wrapped up in scandal as a new senator, one of the
‘Keating Five’. He got through that, then in the early 90s spit in the face, even slapping one, of EVERY FAMILY of POW/MIAs with normalization of Vietnam, where many well placed allies benefited greatly from trade.
He ran for President in 2000 lost badly to George Bush, then opposed his tax cuts, proposed amnesty for illegals, gov’t takeover of the banks, Cap & Trade, and EVEN control of our vitamins and gardens! Yes, I am speaking of John McCain, no doubt the most liberal (read: Progressive) Repubican, who’s feared throughout Washington; and is certainly Obama-lite!
I will definitely take DOZENS out of the Reagan mold with vast experience and highly principle people who will NOT cower when the McCain’s of the world threaten and cajole them! There is a clear difference between THESE two career politicians, and we can see it thoroughly in this 2010 AZ Senate race!
By the way, please note WHO gave ‘fawning’ praise the “the other guy” Deakin in the debate last Friday!
Steve:
And one can safely note that the second “career” politician’s supporters on this site are comprised of paid staffers!
Personal principles and integrity are not the characteristics one finds in a R.I.N.O.
I want results not just token actions. There have been many well meaning politicians who claim to believe in conservative beliefs but they were ran over by the Washington establishment.
Washington will run over the political novices of Jim Ward & Lee Gentry.