172nd Edition
Ideas always matter
I listened to a very interesting podcast by the Wall Street journal describing the startling political ascent of Graham Plattner, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Maine. Apparently, his co-sponsors, the two people responsible for his political rise, looked at thousands of candidates before deciding on Plattner. Really? Thousands of potential candidates and they couldn’t find a person demonstrating more emotional stability, or a better understanding of economic systems than the individual they chose? But toward the end of the podcast, it started to make sense. One of Plattner’s biggest supporters, Morris Katz, explained that he was looking for non-traditional candidates. Ones that haven’t been raised to be a politician, ones that came from outside the establishment, so to speak. What is it about career politicians that our country tends to despise? What is it about outsiders, mavericks, or rebels that our country tends to admire? Are these the seeds of a coming political revolution?
Two main thoughts seem to resonate with people who long for some sort of political revolution. First, people realize that money and an unquenchable thirst for power dominate politics today, producing corruption and wastefulness, which harms ordinary people. Second, and the more important point, is that personal flaws make a candidate more attractive to those working to upset the political status quo. Katz readily admits that all non-traditional candidates have skeletons in their closets, resulting from a life lived unfiltered and more authentically when compared to the scripted, contrived life of those who have been groomed at an early age for a future political career. There is some logic to this, isn’t there…
But there are a few structural problems with this revolutionary methodology. First of all, ideas matter. Focusing on tearing down or destroying existing structures and methodologies without developing wise solutions doesn’t produce economic progress or cultural improvement. Instead, it tends to create new issues for every existing problem it might solve. Reactionaries have a poor track record of understanding the laws of unintended consequences. To achieve a goal or to strive to reach a desired destination, heading in a different wrong direction might create change, but it is unlikely to produce improvement. People who desire change and progress, but who don’t understand the lessons of history nor possess adequate knowledge of economic principles, aren’t likely to make things better for our country. They may be successful at tearing things down, but not so successful in building things up.
Americans will always have a soft spot for a person who has battled adversity, overcame initial defeat and achieved success by their own initiative and determination. It is not uncommon for these people to become future leaders in the public or private sector. Naturally, the principles they bring to positions of leadership will always matter. So does their understanding, or lack thereof, of the economy and how government and the private sector can most effectively work together. Too often, these principles and economic considerations are overlooked by political activists and more unfortunately by voters. The current case of Graham Plattner emphasizes this point. Excessive attention is being paid to his emotionally unstable past, and inadequate attention is being given to his economic viewpoints. Certain flaws should disqualify any candidate and believing that socialism is a better economic system than free-market capitalism, should be one of them. While overcoming PTSD, along with being a hard-working business owner are certainly reasons to admire Mr. Plattner, his economic philosophy should still disqualify him as a candidate for the Senate. Will it? We will find out soon enough.
Meanwhile, uneasiness about the quality of political candidates at the national level lingers, like an ominous, approaching storm cloud. Poor candidates become poor leaders, who will inevitably make poor, if not disastrous, decisions. Unquestionably, the future of our country will be driven by the quality and foresight of our leaders.
At the same time, there are other interesting cross currents in all this political mess. In many ways we have become a country more inclined to root against, rather than for, something or someone. For example, a lot of people are rooting against the mayor of New York City, just so people embracing socialism will learn a valuable economic lesson. Another obvious example is the unshakeable opposition to President Trump. No matter what he attempts, nearly half the country hopes he fails. Again, ideas do matter. It is inevitable that terrible leaders will make dreadful decisions and it makes perfect sense to root against them. Unfortunately, this rooting against mindset has negative ramifications. It tends to make us insular, close-minded, and worst of all, it leads us to settle for any candidate as long as we can say – at least he’s not as bad as so and so.
Maybe we do need a political revolution. We had one once, two hundred and fifty years ago. The ideas the Founding Fathers galvanized into the Declaration of Independence and eventually into the Constitution and Bill of Rights were brilliant and established the foundation that produced the greatest country in history. What ideas will be at the center of a political revolution today? Yet again, ideas matter.
Nearly three years ago, in my second blog, I wrote about how we might recruit better candidates. You’ll find that blog post here: https://kayesbooks.com/mandatory-political-service/
Finally, my latest short novel “A Run for the Presidency” outlines some of the character traits that could potentially produce the next great leader of our amazing country. I sure hope to see that person emerge during my lifetime.
A link to that book: https://kayesbooks.com/novels/
Please help me grow my readership by forwarding this to a friend(s). In the meantime, stay tuned for my next newsletter. Thanks
Michael Kayes
*These views are my personal opinions and are not the viewpoints of any company or organization.