While I was out with the flu, we had a good-news-bad-news situation arise here in South Carolina.
The good news was that Jim DeMint was leaving the Senate.
The bad news was that, incredible as it still seems every time I’m reminded of the fact, Nikki Haley is actually the governor of our state.
But looking on the bright side even of that, Gov. Haley inadvertently explained something important yesterday (while meaning to say the opposite):
COLUMBIA, SC — Gov. Nikki Haley said Thursday (sic — since this was in this morning’s paper, I’m assuming she actually said it Wednesday) that political experience is not a requirement for the successor to resigning U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint.
Haley will name that successor, and two of the governor’s five reported finalists for the coveted seat – former first lady Jenny Sanford and state agency head Catherine Templeton – have not held elected office.
“It is not about time in office, which I think is the wrong way of looking at government,” said Haley, who was a political newcomer when she won a state House seat in 2004. “It’s the effect and the result they can show in office.”…
Focus on that last sentence: “It’s the effect and the result they can show in office.”
Indeed. In fact, in deciding who might be suited to public office, you have no better guide than what you have been able to observe that person doing in public office in the past. Nothing else is truly useful.
Of course, if she were to elaborate, the governor would no doubt say that what she meant was “the effect and the result they SAY they can show in office,” since with populist ideologues of her ilk, it’s all about the talk and the theory.
But no practical person gives what a candidate says he will do even a hundredth the weight of what the observer has actually seen that candidate do under real-world conditions.
That’s the test.
A reasonable person would not insist upon experience in a school board or city-council candidate, although it’s nice to have. One can excuse the lack of it in a state legislative candidate, if one doesn’t have a better alternative. But the United States Senate? Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith aside, when you have a universe of qualified people out there to choose from, there is NO excuse for choosing a public-office novice. None whatsoever.
And for any who don’t understand the difference, experience running a business — or running your husband’s gubernatorial campaigns, or occupying a government job to which your friend the governor appointed you and in which you have not under any stretch of the imagination distinguished yourself — are not the same as having been elected by the people to public office and spent observable time in that fishbowl, discharging the duties of that office.
South Carolina’s U.S. House delegation is nearly full of relative neophytes (the governor’s kind of people) who at least have spent a couple of years each in an office that is a reasonable precursor to the Senate. Beyond that, the Republican Party has in the past generation produced a large number of potential senators with better resumes that that.
Under the circumstances, there is no excuse at all for choosing inexperience.
Related Posts
Right… what we need is more experienced legislators to continue to keep the highly efficient system that we have in place in Congress now running on all cylinders.
We’ve got plenty of experience in Congress. That’s the problem. The “fiscal cliff” was created by experienced politicians.
We need ethical, intelligent, independent legislators.. not political animals willing to barter political capital for personal gain (ref: Lindsey Graham).
The irony of political experience is that the more you get, the less likely you are to be effective at serving all people. You just become more effective at getting re-elected.
Yes, Doug, thank you for articulating Gov. Haley’s worldview — as if we don’t hear enough of that.
Anyone else?
How does Doug reconcile his perspective with the intent of the Founding Fathers, particularly the idea of compromise and deliberation? Senator DeMint was excellent in holding up and precluding compromise. What results did he procure?
I agree with Brad on this point. For an office like US Senate, the issue is whether an appointee can function in a legislative and deliberative body. While I would certainly hope that any appointee will be intelligent and ethical, the litmus test is experience in a legislative office. One could also argue that another litmus test would be an election to a state-wide office; the entire state electorate has had a chance to evaluate the candidate.
To extend Brad’s point on school-board and county council candidates, reasonable people do expect something from these candidates. One would like to see involvement and study into the challenges faced by the board.
Someone like Bob Inglis or Joe Riley or Knox White would be perfect fits.
Which means they have zero chance of being selected for the job.
Strom Thurmond. Case closed.
@Patrick
I reconcile the idea of compromise and deliberation by expecting legislators to do both…
1) To compromise when presented with an argument compelling enough to warrant conceding a point but never compromising on ones basic principles…. i.e. voting yes on one bill that you disagree with to get a yes vote on another bill
2) To deliberate independently based on factual information, not party lines… To assess, review, and decide based on evidence, not political strategy…
Our Congress is not made up of people skillful at true compromise and deliberation. It is made up of experienced horse traders and panderers looking to satisfy their own personal ambitions and financial gain.
Ron Paul is a very experienced Congressmen yet I don’t think Brad wants that type of experience. I’d like 100 more of him.
Agree completely, Brad.
Doug, you literally reverberated the antithesis of the blog post’s point. That’s a skill. Congrats!
There was a recent op-ed by Mick Mulvaney engaging a constituent on compromise.
“At a recent town hall meeting I had a constituent ask me a fairly straightforward question: “Why won’t you compromise with the President?” My response was probably not what she expected: “Do you want to sell your home?” Taken aback, she responded that she did not. “I’ll give you $100,000,” I told her. Again, she refused. “How about $200,000?” I pressed. “Stop,” she exclaimed, “I don’t want to sell my house.”
“Well, why won’t you compromise with me?” I asked.”
That reflect my view on compromise in politics. If you have expressed a fundamental belief that government spending is out of control, what compromise exists other than starting at spending less money?
The Democrat/Republican compromise will be about both sides trying to win enough points for their side to make it appear they are compromising. Tax cuts will be traded for spending increases.
A true compromise position would start by addressing the spending side of the equation FIRST… then, and only then, start working on finding the revenues to meet that spending.
Our massive debt and deficits are the result of the compromise and deliberation of experienced politicians. Does anyone disagree with that statement?
Brad,
I disagree. I don’t believe any previous political experience is required or even helpful if you are elected to Congress, or even the Presidency. Those positions now stray so far from any real life experiences or previous political experience, that I just don’t think it would help.
In fact, I would like to see business ownership or at least management experience for any candidate, but too frequently career politicians get those jobs.
I would not endorse either of the candidates mentioned here.
How about deception by W leading to two unpaid wars & Part D with pharma not having to negotiate on prices. Look at the real deficit numbers to see from wince it came.
Doug, Mulvaney’s analogy was a non-sequetor piece of total nonsense, typical for a tea party type. Given it’s complete irrelevance to the budget discussion let’s move on.
The budget debate is about how we will reduce the national debt. That is a numbers game that assumes everyone wants to reduce the debt but disagrees on how. (Frankly I don’t find the national debt a serious concern right now but that’s another story). If neither side compromises then the Republicans get nothing since they’re the ones who insist on keeping ALL taxes at the current level. If they choose to compromise they may get some part of what they want. Better half or even a quarter of a loaf rather than nothing. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
I’d have more faith in Senator Phillip Bush than Senator Henry McMaster.
As for Greg’s point I see nothing about owning a business that would in any way make one qualified to be a United States Senator. A business is about profit. It’s about how to extract as much money out of your customers as possible while at the same time keeping business costs, especially labor costs low. There is no particular incentive in granting customers or labor any particular benefit unless it helps with the bottom line. Customer benefits are maximized within a capitalist system through the interaction of many forces not the least of which is competition. Once competition is lost through monopoly power a business loses most of its incentive to be a good steward of it’s customers and workers.
Running a country is just the opposite. An elected official’s primary goal is to benefit it’s customers, ie the citizens of the nation. There is no profit consideration to consider. Rather the goals of a public servant are related to keeping the country safe, prosperous and clean. It also requires negotiation skills and the art of compromise. Business ownership as we saw with Mitt Romney tends to teach the wrong lessons about how to serve in public office.
Although I wouldn’t disqualify a business man from running for elected office I would likely give someone like a community organizer greater consideration all other things being equal.
Actually, I would probably prefer Phillip Bush as well. But that’s because I have extensive experience observing Phillip engaging in political debate on a very wide spectrum of important public issues. I’ve seen the remarkably thoughtful, careful and respectful way he engages in constructive deliberation with people who do not agree with him, inspiring a great deal of confidence that he possesses qualities that would make him not only an effective lawmaker, but a statesman.
Normally, though, one doesn’t have the opportunity to observe someone exhibiting those qualities outside of public office. But I’m satisfied that I’ve seen in him the qualities I look for as I watch candidates in public office…
And I’m not going to go down a list of our friends here and say which ones I would NOT endorse for office, because I don’t want to hurt feelings.
But I will say that Phillip would be among a small number who I think has amply demonstrated the qualities that I think would make for an excellent senator.
Mark Stewart would be another. There would be a very few others, but I’ll stop there.
Here’s an example of compromise. We all know Social Security has finding issues that must be addressed. So why in the world would Obama suggest cutting Social Security taxes by 2% on the employee’s part in the first place (and Republicans going along with it)? and now saying that same cut must be kept in 2013?
That isn’t compromise… it’s political theatre with the sole purpose of saying “See, I put more money back in your paycheck!”. Nevermind that it’s taking money away from a program that at the same time the same politicians say needs to fixed. That’s lunacy created by experienced “compromisers” and “deliberators”.
Gov. Haley has already telegraphed her final pick, in my opinion.
Two women and a racial minority make the field of five appear equitable to her detractors. Unfortunately for Tim Scott, he is somewhat untried in office (though I disagree with Brad’s premise and applaud Greg’s business focus).
On more substantive examination, 60% of Haley’s announced candidates so far have been lawyers. She endorsed Romney (never a credible conservative, nor “a fighter like Jim DeMint”, but also a law grad).
Who will it be: Henry McMaster lawyer helped Haley become Governor. She still owes him big time.
It’s political pandering. Which has nothing to do with political experience. In fact, I would expect a person with zero experience to be, if anything, MORE likely to vote for something like that that sounds good but is a bad idea.
But what Doug is touching upon is, of course, the one argument in favor of term limits — which is the opposite of the one that term limits advocates usually make.
Usually, one hears that term limits would bring pols closer to the people they represent, and more likely to represent popular sentiment.
Actually, the best argument for term limits is that they would INSULATE officeholders from popular opinion so that they might (and let me emphasize “MIGHT”) do a smart-but-unpopular thing.
Still doesn’t sell me on the idea.
Doug you are right that some things just cannot be compromised. I would include things like the decision to wage war, abortion, and same-sex marriage. Budgetary matters can and should be dealt with in a deliberative way because that involves tangeble monetary factors that can be quantified.
As for the Social Security tax cut I’ll just go ahead and agree with Doug. That was probably not a good idea. Now it’s difficult to return the rates to what they were.
“In fact, I would expect a person with zero experience to be, if anything, MORE likely to vote for something like that that sounds good but is a bad idea”
But that’s not what happened, was it? Experienced politicians proposed it and voted for it. It would not have passed if it was suggested by a first term Congressman.
The problem, Brad, is that you believe in the purity of the system but fail to accept that the people in the system poison it. Representative government is great in theory but lousy in practice.
Brad is right. What we need is an experienced appointee with a proven ability to articulate our state’s needs, argue persuasively, negotiate effectively and engage in statesman-like compromise for the betterment of South Carolina. Most of the newer members of S.C.’s congressional delegation illustrate what must be avoided. They’ve marginalized themselves by their own inexperience, extreme positions and lack of compromise. As a result, they accomplish very little for South Carolina or our nation.
And Brad is correct.
Whether intended explicitly or not, the Senate is the US version of the House of Lords, meaning it should be a collection of the best and brightest, chosen by states (the 17th amendment solved no problems), who serve for a time and then come home.
Alas we don’t live in that world, and instead we get a Senator who quits his public trust because he believes his first obligation is to conservative American and not to South Carolina – which really needs a good Senator representing the state, not a think tank advocate.
Brad, glad you’re doing better.
But Bud, in our system of self-government, all of those things — “the decision to wage war, abortion, and same-sex marriage” — are as much topics for compromise as anything else. The problems come when we try to place them beyond deliberation.
Let’s just take the one that you probably feel most passionate about — “the decision to wage war.”
You should read the Lincoln book I’m still plowing through, “Team of Rivals.”
I’m still in the early months of the Civil War, and every single day, something else about the war and its purposes is subjected to careful negotiation and debate and honing to get the nuances JUST right. The simple version is that Lincoln has to be very careful to avoid to appear to be fighting to end slavery, because of the terrible danger of losing such border states as Kentucky to the Confederacy. For that matter, Washington is surrounded by two slaveholding states, Virginia and Maryland. If Maryland follows Virginia into secession, all is lost.
At the same time, Lincoln’s ability to hold his own party together depends upon not taking hope away from the minority of “radicals” who are either for outright abolition or something close to it.
So, from day to day, the very fact of what the nation was fighting for was something constantly nudged and pushed and pulled and negotiated.
Ditto with “simple” matters such as appointing McClellan, pushing out Scott, trying to get McClellan to DO something, trying to control Fremont out in Missouri — everything was a careful balancing of political decisions. Nothing was cut-and-dried. With our modern nation-state and our professional military it’s hard to imagine the persuading and careful nurturing of egos that the president had to engage in to run the war. Every detail required the same sorts of skills as to move a controversial bill through a legislative body.
We like to think that wars worth waging are simple — the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, Hitler declares war on us, we declare war back. Nothing to think about.
Tell that to Eisenhower, who had to manage Montgomery, Patton and Churchill….
Oh, and the decision itself to wage war — even whether to defend Fort Sumter at the outset — was a minefield that Lincoln had to tiptoe through in his inaugural address, trying to strike a balance between promising to defend federal property and appearing to be “threatening” the secessionists (this at a time when Virginia had still not seceded).
Robert E. Lee was deeply opposed to secession, and wrote at the time that if he could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves in the country, he would do it. Nothing was cut-and-dried for him, either.
Phillip Bush is awesome and would be amazing!
That is all.
I am honored by the comparison and humbled by the inclusion. However, the only thing political about me is my hair – when well cut by an old-world scissor man.
It’s not like SC is lacking in Republicans; so it remains hard to see why finding a suitable appointee is so difficult. Whatever a pol feels they gain by elevating a consort is generally usurped by the opinion of the electorate over the following years. Why not go ahead and reward competence? That would be most likely to reflect well on a Governor over time.
And it is absutely right that the Governor fill DeMint’s rejection of his state. In principle. I just hope Haley rises above her history with this choice. Who will be the (unannounced) sixth choice?
Ultimately the decision to go to war was either a yes or no. None of this 50 shades of grey stuff. Same with WW I, WW II, Vietnam or Iraq. Decisions about the best way to wage a war once it’s joined are certainly eligible for debate but fall largely outside the context of politics. There are major exceptions of course. We had huge debates with the Brits and Ruskies about where and when to invade Europe that had as much to do with politics as military expediency. Still I don’t find it credible to suggest that issues related to war are really within the pervue of congressional give and take in the same way that the national debt is.
DARLA! MOORE!
DARLA! MOORE!
DARLA! MOORE!
Left side shouts DARLA and the right side of the stadium shouts MOORE like the “GAME! COCKS!” cheer.
I doubt that will happen since Darla Moore is not a Nikki Haley acolyte and didn’t give millions of dollars or even a few measely thousand dollars like that “no name” lawyer that replaced her on the USC Board of Trustees.