[Rhodes22-list] Politics - Is This The Best We Can Do?

[Brad Haslett]

This just in from one of my favorite bloggers.  BTW, Phil Bredesen is
my Governor, a Democrat who I crossed the ticket to vote for.  Good
Guy!  Brad

---------------------

Is This The Best We Can Do?
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 10.27.08, 9:25 AM ET

In 2004, Reason magazine's cover featured a photo of George W. Bush
and John F. Kerry, and explained that the good news was that one of
the two would not be president--but that the bad news was that one
would. On one level, it was a funny cover, but on another level, not
so much. What's even less funny is the likelihood that the same gag
could be recycled at almost any election in the future, including this
one.

I mean no disrespect toward Obama and McCain. But I'm sure I wasn't
the only one who watched the candidates debate and thought, "Out of a
nation of 300 million, this is the best we can do?" After all, the
infant United States, with a tiny fraction of the population, produced
Washington, Jefferson and Adams. Despite our having a (much) larger
and better-educated populace today, it's hard to argue that we're
performing up to that standard now.

So what's wrong? Is it that America is producing worse people in
general, or is it that our best people aren't winding up in politics?
I'm pretty sure the problem is the latter.
Looking around America, we seem to have plenty of first-rate people
with first-rate talents. They're running companies, doing scientific
research, teaching in universities and volunteering. They just don't
seem to be in national politics. One of my friends from law school is
among them. We all thought he'd be a senator or governor by now. So, I
think, did he--until he practiced law in Washington for a while, saw
up-close what it was like to be a senator, and changed his mind. Now
he's in private equity.

Maybe he's doing more good for the country there than he'd do in the
Senate, but he's certainly gotten a better life for himself and his
family. As an emotionally well-balanced guy with a lot of integrity,
that was important to him. Being a senator didn't seem like something
that would fit those values. Plus, it looked like a lousy life. And
that also, I think, is part of the problem. Politics was always work,
but over the past several decades it's become miserable work. The pay
is mediocre (though senators and congressmen, suspiciously, always
seem to leave office a lot richer than they entered), the hours are
long, the pressure is high, and, as Congress' approval ratings plunge,
the psychic rewards ought to be iffy.

Being president is, arguably, still a better deal, but the process of
becoming president has gotten so much worse that it more than makes up
for the difference. And at all levels of national politics, raising
money is the most important skill. On top of that, we want charisma.
Watching my state's governor, Phil Bredesen, deal with financial
problems, I remarked that I'd rather see him on a national ticket than
anyone who's there now. The response I got was that he's got ability,
but--at least on TV--not enough charisma.

Having produced a political system that is so miserable it's likely to
deter well-balanced people with integrity, and one in which the most
important skills involve raising money and looking good on TV, we
shouldn't be surprised if we wind up with a lot of people who want the
jobs out of a narcissistic desire for importance, or a corrupt desire
for power and spoils, and whose chief skills involve getting people to
donate cash to their campaigns while looking good on TV. The problem
is that a political class made up of corrupt and/or narcissistic
money-raisers isn't likely to produce much in the way of good
government, and certainly there's not much evidence that we're getting
a lot of good government out of the political class that we have.

So what do we do? Maybe nothing--it's arguable that a system where the
best and brightest view politics as their best option is a system in
even deeper trouble. But as I look at the problems we're likely to
face over the coming decades, and then at the politicians who are
likely to be handling them, it doesn't seem to me that our problem is
too much talent going into politics.

There have been a lot of structural suggestions: Term limits, a ban on
senators running for president (which would probably do more for the
Senate than for the White House, really) and various campaign-finance
schemes that look pretty iffy in light of recent experience. Term
limits might shake up our gerrymandered Congress a bit and bring in
some new blood, but would they bring in the right kind of new blood?
That's less clear.

So while I remain open to suggestions for structural reform, I think
that we may need a change in the culture. It's no surprise that a lot
of our best political leaders distinguished themselves outside of
politics before they ran for office. Perhaps we need to be encouraging
an ethic of public service among our most successful, in the hopes
that we'll get more people with real-world experience and proven
ability at doing something besides raising money and looking good on
TV. Could we do better? We're unlikely to do worse.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is professor of law at the University of
Tennessee, and blogs at InstaPundit.com.