09
Mar
2004
It appears that no amount of contempt from American voters can change the methodology by which candidates, running for elected office, campaign. Predictably, during election years, the public is exposed to the same tired messages, delivered with the same contrived sincerity, that promise all kinds of positive changes, including solutions to the most pressing issues of the day. Pathetically, many of these same issues continue to plague Americans decades later (e.g., affordable health care, the influence of lobbyists, high taxes, etc.).
Most of us listen to the campaign rhetoric with frustration because we've heard it all before. No single candidate can deliver change by themselves. For any change to occur, it takes the willingness of a majority of other elected officials who share the same vision. Yet, each campaign is full of boastful content that assures sweeping reform and better lives for all.
The truth is that once elected, candidates are immediately consumed by the milieu that defines political life. If candidates are green, never having held office before, they most likely spend most of their first term just trying to navigate the system. Most of the freshman legislators are marginalized, often operating outside the sphere of real influence, getting small bits of attention from the old guard when critical votes are needed. Lobbyists can normally run circles around these neo-latures, especially if the bills and related data are complicated and/or lengthy. There is not enough time to properly digest all the information that contributes to an informed vote on the public's behalf.
Any new bills must pass through specific channels before they ever reach the full legislative body for a vote. The first step is to submit it to the appropriate committee. This alone might require lobbying and consensus-building on the part of the legislator(s) authoring the new law. Imagine the time this would take as the bill moves up the chain of command. Depending on the bill's content, those parties who are affected negatively will gather their forces to defeat it at every level. Or in building consensus, compromises are traditionally made out of necessity. In some cases such additions or amendments have nothing whatsoever to do with a bill's content, but ride piggyback as a way through the process with little or no attention paid. This is often why legislators end up voting against bills they initiated.
The process for creating change is cumbersome and all about politics. Who a candidate knows is often more important than what he/she knows. It is a game of positioning, not of positions.
That said, what are the qualifications we should be looking for in candidates, regardless of the office? Rather than considering candidates in terms of what they say they will "do" if they are elected, voters should look at measurables such as work ethic, reliability, team-building, achievements in their professional lives, volunteer work, board and committee involvement, project or business successes, and managerial experience.
We should give far more weight to leadership experience in all walks of life rather than half-baked promises parroted on a television commercial in less than 30 seconds.
Most of us listen to the campaign rhetoric with frustration because we've heard it all before. No single candidate can deliver change by themselves. For any change to occur, it takes the willingness of a majority of other elected officials who share the same vision. Yet, each campaign is full of boastful content that assures sweeping reform and better lives for all.
The truth is that once elected, candidates are immediately consumed by the milieu that defines political life. If candidates are green, never having held office before, they most likely spend most of their first term just trying to navigate the system. Most of the freshman legislators are marginalized, often operating outside the sphere of real influence, getting small bits of attention from the old guard when critical votes are needed. Lobbyists can normally run circles around these neo-latures, especially if the bills and related data are complicated and/or lengthy. There is not enough time to properly digest all the information that contributes to an informed vote on the public's behalf.
Any new bills must pass through specific channels before they ever reach the full legislative body for a vote. The first step is to submit it to the appropriate committee. This alone might require lobbying and consensus-building on the part of the legislator(s) authoring the new law. Imagine the time this would take as the bill moves up the chain of command. Depending on the bill's content, those parties who are affected negatively will gather their forces to defeat it at every level. Or in building consensus, compromises are traditionally made out of necessity. In some cases such additions or amendments have nothing whatsoever to do with a bill's content, but ride piggyback as a way through the process with little or no attention paid. This is often why legislators end up voting against bills they initiated.
The process for creating change is cumbersome and all about politics. Who a candidate knows is often more important than what he/she knows. It is a game of positioning, not of positions.
That said, what are the qualifications we should be looking for in candidates, regardless of the office? Rather than considering candidates in terms of what they say they will "do" if they are elected, voters should look at measurables such as work ethic, reliability, team-building, achievements in their professional lives, volunteer work, board and committee involvement, project or business successes, and managerial experience.
We should give far more weight to leadership experience in all walks of life rather than half-baked promises parroted on a television commercial in less than 30 seconds.
