First and foremost, and the object of my critique, comes the Party influence. I have never been a fan of parties. I never attended any in college, and I do not intend to cowtow to them now. That, however, is precisely my largest problem in gaining a nomination and ultimately a seat. Politics, like so much else in society, seems to be the stuff of popularity, where people advance less dependent on what they know than on whom they know. When a person gains support of a party, he ascribes his allegiance to the party's principles, irrespective of his own personal convictions in order to stay in office. If you sway from the party line, like John Ensign (R-NV) did under Newt Gingrich's House leadership, the party itself will drive you out.
No less oblige on the matter, the types of persons who ascend to office are typically more of the same, and I am not among that cartel. Most politicians, schooled in the ways of lawyers and the artifice of law, come from the legal profession, which accurately enough prepares them to word arguments and understand statutes as presently constituted but QUALIFIES THEM FOR LITTLE ELSE. Notwithstanding, to hear our legislators speak, they claim expertise on every aspect of society, even though they largely lack credentials to speak on any of the matters they take up as a matter of discussion, claiming themselves able to run every aspect of our lives with zero experience better than men who have spent 20-30 years at the helm of such industries. John Adams wrote during his time in the Continental Congress: “I fear that in every assembly, members will obtain an influence by noise not sense. By meanness, not greatness. By ignorance, not learning. By contracted hearts, not large souls”. Blathering blather scythes, who have no greater credentials than a long history in Congress, outshout all contenders, badger them into the ground. Remember the plight of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, how his own colleague by tirade almost beat down a good man.
The other problem with ensconced traditions of expertise comes in the form of a litmus test. If you don't have years of experience in lower levels of government or in law, you're immediately unqualified for a Senate seat, other experience notwithstanding. Last year I applied for a job with the NV highway patrol and made it through all the hoops up to and including the interview, which, although I ostensibly passed, did not recommend me as a strong candidate. The sergeant who made most of the argument in the negative made much ado about the fact that, although I hold an advanced degree in Biochemistry (an arguably difficult and arduous field of study), I had never taken a course in Criminal Justice. In his mind, the title of the degree, regardless of my character, experience and potential, meant everything, as if having a CJ degree makes one more likely to succeed and of greater utility than any other qualification. My father could not understand his prejudice, my father having been a combat veteran of the USAF who flew with pilots who held college degrees in things skew to the Air Force's mission like Forestry, Communications, and Art History. In our congress since I started voting, we have had a gynecologist (Ron Paul), a retired astronaut (John Glenn), a veterinarian (John Ensign), a hollywood actor (Fred Thompson) and others. Who says you have to be a lawyer to be a good legislator? Besides, those who are lawyers and served at lower levels of government have spent their lives interfering in our lives and never produced anything of value to us.
Lest we forget, generally and genuinely good men refuse to run for office for fear of having any skeletons, regardless of their size or age, exposed to the public. Bill Frist, Trent Lott, George Allen, and others fell under the "scandal" axe, notwithstanding greater scandals in the other party like William Jefferson, William Clinton, Christopher Dodd, Harry Reid, and others, still under investigation though not basted by the media. Everyone has done things they regret, and good men fear that their opposition will make mountains out of molehills and shoot their butterflies with rifles. So how do I choose to deal with it? I turn to Shakespeare in answer:
It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.A friend of mine said, when I visited him a few weeks ago, that if my exertions to live by my moral code do not warrant mercy, nobody does.
One final hurdle of which to make mention is as CS Lewis calls it, the trend to make men without chests. By making a mockery of traditional patriotism and chivalry, those who are themselves evil and cowardly and selfish draw attention from the beam in their eye to the mote that may be in mine. Wrote James Warren to John Adams, the "love of country supplanted by a love of luxury"…the current “avidity for pleasure” and money…was all that mattered anymore. “Patriotism is ridiculed. Integrity and ability are of little consequence”. What matters is money and a good name, a historical legacy, that if you are not among the MyFaves of Congress, you cannot on merit win a seat in a fair fight.
The good old boy network at work in Congress dissuades men from running for office. Instead, many of them look for other ways to make a real difference, and for that I am glad. For all of you who opt instead to serve in arms, I salute you. Many good Americans envy you the opportunity you have to serve in the military. There is nothing we can do to fully repay you, and that is indeed unfortunate.
This image is proprietary.
