Sitting in a nondescript, Soviet-style square of a government building, looking over at the Texas Capitol, it hit me: anybody can get elected if they’re famous enough. The latest round of fame over substance is of course living in the Governor’s Mansion a few blocks from here. But think about the others. There is a ton of them-- Jesse Ventura, Steve Largent, J.C. Watts, Sonny Bono, Steve Forbes, any Bush son, any Kennedy, and a flock of others. Charles Barkley is even talking about running for office after leaving the NBA.

This of course raises a grand philosophical question that has been mulled over since the days of Plato. Should the government be indicative of the mass populace, or should it be composed of trained experts in government? In an ideal world these two groups would be the same, but no one can honestly believe that to be reality. In the Republic, Plato makes a wonderful analogy to make this point. He asked a student, who was the staunchest supporter of pure democracy, what he did when his sandals were in need of repair. The student without hesitation stated that he took them to the cobbler. Plato then asked why he didn’t repair them himself or have a friend do it. The student answered that neither he nor his friends knew how to make such a repair. Bingo! If most people are not capable of fixing shoes, why should we expect the masses to do something much more complex--govern well?

Many a purist will complain that this is pulling power away from the people. Far from it. We must simply recognize that every day thousands of significant policy decisions are made that require significant governing experience. A republic still empowers the people to place officials. If the officials don’t take care of the nation, they’re out.

As the issues facing governments become increasingly technical and require specialized knowledge, Plato’s notion seems all the more accurate. I don’t want Barkley making foreign policy decisions. Do you? These famous people may have entertained or wowed us on the playing field, but they are with few exceptions (most notably Bill Bradley) ill-prepared for life in government. This is not to say that they couldn’t eventually be qualified. For example, Clint Eastwood has been in local politics for several years. He is learning to govern with issues that are near to him and on which he is much closer to being an expert. Perhaps in time he will be prepared to move to higher office. But the resumes of G.W. Bush and Jesse Ventura could fit in a fortune cookie. Why do so many people think that they should be in high executive office?

The answer is simple. A Bush running for President sounds familiar. Ventura was on the tube every Saturday night in the WWF. The qualified people are not as visible. They are busy as policymakers as opposed to faces on televisions.

Though ideologically, morally and otherwise the man was revolting, this same phenomenon cost Richard Nixon the 1960 election. The debates between Nixon and Kennedy were aired (on radio and television) just a couple of days before the election. Even in the best of times Nixon looked awful, but he debated Kennedy while sick, in a suit that blended with the backdrop, and with a bit of five o’clock shadow. Polls of listeners showed that the radio audience thought Nixon won the debate, while the television audience preferred Kennedy. Kennedy won by a couple hundred thousand votes.

The point of the little history lesson is this:  Nixon was probably better qualified than Kennedy, but form won the election over substance. The folks who only heard the words of the candidates had a much different view than the watching audience.

As the candidates shift into gear for the 2000 election, remember that the ideas are more important than their source. Just because you know his name doesn’t make him fit to govern. I’ve heard of Ted Bundy, but I sure wouldn’t vote for him. Also, give the candidates the ultimate test. Read what they have to say, without their names tacked to it. No pictures.

I did this with a couple of Governor Bush’s and Reggie White’s speeches. Yes, I know that Reggie White isn’t running for office, but he is politically vocal and therefore qualifies. Once the laughter subsided, the sad reality surfaced. The Governor’s speech reads like one of those 900 number, $5-a-minute fortune tellers. He speaks in such vague, idyllic terms that no one can hate him. Of course, he isn’t giving us any idea of what to expect from him either. The words alone give no reason to vote for him or against him. He says less than a mime. Reggie White’s message was much more lucid. It scared me. He spoke in racial stereotypes and judged chunks of the population. If he hadn’t sacked all those quarterbacks, Reggie White’s words would be ignored as the ravings of a close-minded redneck.

Clearly the only reason we listen to them is that we have heard of them. The same can be said of celebrities taking on philanthropic, social, and charitable causes. The causes that the famous people support are no more or less important according to the celebrity attention they receive. Similarly, political issues are no more or less important when a famous person endorses or criticizes them. It is the facts that are important, not the source.

We may ridicule bureaucrats as stiff, nerdy burdens and lifelong politicians as untrustworthy crooks, but they know the job of governing. The repair of sandals is deserving of an expert, and the development of policy is too.

BraveNews World
Email Webmaster
Staff Info