Are career politicians more helpful or hurtful?
Are career politicians more a part of the problem or needed as part of the solution? There is an ad running here in Cali that alludes to doing more of the same without results is crazy. Isn’t that what happens in just about every election? Once you get into office you can be almost comatose and not lose your job. If you don’t make any major screw ups you can be in Congress or the Senate for decades. Is that good or bad? If you are a career politician you are there long enough to know how government work but also there long enough to cozy up to all the lobbyist. If you are there that long people get comfortable with you but you can also get so complacent that you feel you don’t have to really try, just show up. If you have a bloc of congressmen or senators who have been there as long as furniture how can you get fresh ideals or a new direction? If they could only hold office too short of a time then they might not try because they would be spending too much time lining up the next office when they had to leave their present one.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
8 Answers
Such a huge generalization! As in any profession, some career politicians work hard to do the best job they can—others don’t.
The question assumes that politicians are motivated by something other than their own ambition, and/or their lust for power, prestige and privilege.
I contend that all politicians are, to some degree or another, ammoral egoists. (BTW, nothing wrong with an egoist, unless they are also ammoral).
So what difference does it make if they are rookies or veterans? At least if they are veterans you have a better chance of discovering the skeletons in their closet.
My state allows Governors to hold two terms of office (8 years). The first two years, they learn state government and all the machinations thereof, the next two they run for their second term, the next four are key—they either accomplish something or they are a lame duck. It almost seems like a 6 year term would result in at least 2 years of work getting done somewhere there in the middle.
Term limits would be a great thing, but it will never happen.
I think it;‘s a mixed bag. On the one hand, they actually have a clue what they are doing. Elect me—I am completely unqualified!” sounds pretty absurd. Remember the same people now making the argument that career politicians are a complete pox were the ones arguing in 2008 that a one-term Senator with no other national experience was woefully unqualified to be President of the United States.
On the other hand, career politicians often get so plugged into the power and money structure that now floods politics that they largely or completely ignore the needs of the people that sent them to office. Also, politicians now often spend a great deal of their time not doing the people’s business but fund raising and triangulating for the next election. That suggests to me that we should pick qualified people, but that term limits would be a good idea.
But when it comes to complete lack of experience, I’m not sold that’s a positive attribute. To me, a person’s experience should be an issue, but not the only issue. Have they done things in the past that demonstrate a clear ability to organize and lead a large enterprise well? I don’t buy the idea that Joe the Plumber would make a great Senator just because he hasn’t an earthly clue how government really works and couldn’t understand the US Constitution because it’s full of big words. Common sense tells us that common sense will only take you so far. When you want a rocket to actually take off, rocket scientists will stand a better chance of delivering your goal than a bunch of rubes who just fell off the turnip truck.
Congress critters tend to get reelected because they bring back the pork. Maybe the jobs. You don’t do that if you sit around your office doing nothing.
At the state level, I think it is possible to be dead weight in the legislature. There are a lot of bozos in state capitols. On the national level I think it is far more difficult to get away with that.
I believe that learning how to make and pass legislation is an extremely important skill. Term limits lead to a completely paralyzed government—but that’s probably what people who advocate for them want. I would rather lift term limits so we can keep useful and effective politicians in office. Imagine if Bill Clinton didn’t have a term limit. The left and right would still be hating on him, but at least things would be getting done. Or not. And if not, he’d be gone.
Unfortunately, the answer to this either/or question is yes. Career politicians can be much more effective in providing representation for their constituents. They can also become much more efficient in obtaining personal advantages.
@Hypocrisy_Central
I think both parties and 99% of Politicians are self serving worthless bullshit Artist. They do not represent the majority of American’s. They do as the Lobbyist demand at the expense of what is best for most American’s.
I dislike both parties. They wish to divide and separate American’s to maintain their power position.
Most are supporting Monsanto in their desire not to label all food. This video was posted recently by another fluther remember.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/bad-guys-1/monsanto-so-many-scandals-just-one-company.html
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
