E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

In defense of the professional politician

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Being a professional politician is not in and of itself a bad thing and can be a reason to support a candidate. Too many candidates for office run on the basis of not being a "professional politician," a statement calculated to win voters with an emotional appeal rather than a substantive argument. We're seeing this pop up again this year, as we do every year.

Now, we have all heard the yarn about the politician who has been in office too long and is only interested in protecting his career or personal interests instead of the principles he was elected to implement in the first place. This is why voters need to continually pressure elected officials to make sure they are holding the line. But that is a function of a person who is not sufficiently devoted to his principles, not someone who has been in office too long.

In a legislative position, with all other things being equal is it better to have someone who understands the legislative process, has a powerful committee assignment due to seniority, and has relationships with other legislators that will allow him to advance legislation? Or is it better to have someone who has none of that? He may vote the right way, but will not be able to accomplish as much as the dreaded professional politician.

Again with all other things being equal, is it better in an administrative office (such as a state treasurer, county sheriff or city clerk) to have someone with managerial experience and extensive institutional knowledge of the operation of county, state or city government in addition to qualifications for the job itself? Or is it better to elect someone who is "not a professional politician" and will have a learning curve upon taking office?

(As for the President, I do not buy the argument that he needs executive experience. The President is not an administrator. If the President ever actually had that role, it expired a very long time ago.)

There are many things to consider when we are voting in a primary or general election. Years of experience in elective office is one of those considerations, and experience should be seen as a positive. In no other field do we consider experience to be a bad thing - as anyone just into the job market looking for their first job will tell you. We have it backwards when electing candidates for office.


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Comments: