Recent presidential elections have favored the outsider over the insider. This cycle, it is worth reconsidering the notion that an outsider is better able to effect change than an insider. by Barry Dinthot
(libertarian)
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Ron Paul is no ordinary mummy hunter.
Since the first televised presidential debates between Kennedy and Nixon, there have been eight presidents elected to office. The first three were Washington insiders (Kennedy, former congressman and senator; Johnson, former senator; Nixon, former vice president). Thus, in the early days of television an insider still had an advantage over an outsider, as was largely the case prior to 1960 (of 31 elected presidents , 3 were former state governors, 4 were former generals, and 24 were insiders defined as either a former congressman, senator, secretary of a federal department, or vice president; source, Wikipedia). In more recent times, however, outsiders have gained the upper hand. Of the last five elected presidents, four have been former state governors.
The advantage of insiders is that their experience as members of the federal government potentially gives them a first-hand understanding of how the system works. Therefore, an insider capable of maintaining objectivity can point to problems in the system and come up with rational solutions. The downside is that insiders tend to lose sight of what is right and wrong as they become subjectively immersed in performing "well" within the system - hence the reformer becomes the reformed (as in, ‘go for wool and come home shorn’), or as they say in Japan, ‘the mummy hunter becomes a mummy himself.‘ This is where outsiders have the advantage, because they are in a position to assess from the outside how the system of federal government is functioning. The problem for outsiders, however, is that without being in the system, their understanding of how it works is inevitably superficial.
That outsiders have gained the upper hand in the age of television is not too surprising. Unlike former congressmen or senators, they don’t have voting records that can be used against them. And given the nature of a medium that emphasizes superficiality (personality characteristics such as verbal eloquence, humor, likeability, or impression of strength, as well as positions on ‘issues’ compressed into sound bytes), it is easy for outsiders to cover up for their lack of understanding of how the federal government works. These factors make it is easier for the outsider to claim the mantle of reformer and more effectively criticize the status quo (the incumbent or insider).
Yet the records of four recent outsiders indicate their difficulties working to effect change once they are placed within the system. Carter sought to trim wasteful spending but poisoned his relationship with congress by overstepping his authority. Reagan, ‘the great communicator,’ preached limited government and reduced taxes but was unable to rein in congressional spending (a fact which would later convince Dick Cheney that ‘Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.’) Clinton controlled the deficit by increasing taxes, but was severely hampered in his second term by an antagonistic congress. And George W. Bush, who promoted himself as a uniter, ended up further dividing the country by waging the Iraq war and exploding government spending. Perhaps there is an inherent cultural resistance within the system against an outsider, which cannot be overcome merely by smooth talk or charm in the absence of a firm grasp of how the system operates in detail (as when a corporate takeover fails because new management does not understand the fine workings of the consolidated company, or when one country invades another to install a new government). It may be time to rethink the wisdom of looking to an outsider for change.
Is there an insider who has not been mummified by the system? For the first time in decades, there is. Ron Paul is a constitutional scholar and self-trained economist who understands the workings of the federal government in intimate detail. And as a 10-term congressman, he has proven time and again that he can maintain his objectivity without being swallowed by the system; for more than two decades he has consistently resisted the growth of the federal government by often voting alone against any bill not explicitly authorized by the constitution. In a sense, he has been the insiders’ outsider. Add to this his long experience as a physician, and we can place trust in his assessment of how the government is ailing as well as the rational solutions he proposes as remedies. His diagnosis and recommended treatment may sound harsh, so it raises the question of whether he will be able to persuade a skeptical congress. Yet with his recent fundraising prowess, his fellow congressmen finally appear to be realizing his steadfast leadership and warming up to his views. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that if he is elected president, Ron Paul’s impeccable credibility of leading by example will convince many to change the way they view the role of the federal government.
It’s high time for a change from within by electing an expert mummy hunter.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Barry Dinthot only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Barry Dinthot is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
