Is It Worth It?
Mike Kole over at Kole Hard Facts today brought up a very interesting point. Can having a blog where one regularly espouses one's personal and political beliefs be harmful to one's political aspirations? If we were to ask the boys in the smoke-filled cigar room in the back as they sipped cognac, they'd probably say yes. The old school answer seems to be that the less people know about your opinions, the better off your political chances appear.
Mike, to his credit, is not taking the low road and obfuscating his spoken beliefs for political points. He's right out there slugging and should frankly be a lesson to other politicos, both entrenched and aspiring. After all, hiding one's beliefs got us Mitch "The Blade" Daniels, who might have been better nicknamed "Butterknife" for his weak budget cuts. It also got us George Bush Sr., a moderate masquerading as a conservative, Bill Clinton, a far-leftist masquerading as a moderate, and George W Bush, a once-thought conservative who never met a spending bill he didn't like.
Is this what we really want, politically? Do we REALLY want politicians whose political beliefs are largely unknown to us, or to which we can only infer from random, confusing and double-talking statements designed to appeal to the largest majority? Should we stay off Issue X because it will offend group Y who are really only interested in Issue Z? If we want to play the same old game, sure. But I would think we wanted candidates who were open book, whose views were very clear. I certainly want it in a Supreme Court nominee, and I definitely want it in an elected official. So should the rest of you, whether you hail from the left or the right.
If your candidate has to get elected by stealth, by hiding who she or he really is, can that person really be that desirable of a candidate? If the only way you can appeal to voters is not to be too appealing on any one topic, then you're probably not qualified to hold office, not in a representative republic anyway, representative being the key word. I would hope we'd all want candidates like Mike Kole, who were willing to be subjected to the scrutiny of the public. Those will be the truly great leaders, because they have the least to hide. That's who we want in charge, those more interested in representing us than in hiding their past.
I've run for office a couple of times myself, and if it's taught me anything, the only way you really gain people's respect, trust and vote, I mean really earn it, is to let them know where you stand. If you alienate some, that's democracy! That's how it's supposed to work. If they don't like you, they'll vote for someone they do like. Government class 101.
So cheers to Mike Kole, and cheers to any candidate with the balls to do what he does, put his real views right out there in the public for all to see, sink or swim, that makes a helluva candidate.
Mike Kole over at Kole Hard Facts today brought up a very interesting point. Can having a blog where one regularly espouses one's personal and political beliefs be harmful to one's political aspirations? If we were to ask the boys in the smoke-filled cigar room in the back as they sipped cognac, they'd probably say yes. The old school answer seems to be that the less people know about your opinions, the better off your political chances appear.
Mike, to his credit, is not taking the low road and obfuscating his spoken beliefs for political points. He's right out there slugging and should frankly be a lesson to other politicos, both entrenched and aspiring. After all, hiding one's beliefs got us Mitch "The Blade" Daniels, who might have been better nicknamed "Butterknife" for his weak budget cuts. It also got us George Bush Sr., a moderate masquerading as a conservative, Bill Clinton, a far-leftist masquerading as a moderate, and George W Bush, a once-thought conservative who never met a spending bill he didn't like.
Is this what we really want, politically? Do we REALLY want politicians whose political beliefs are largely unknown to us, or to which we can only infer from random, confusing and double-talking statements designed to appeal to the largest majority? Should we stay off Issue X because it will offend group Y who are really only interested in Issue Z? If we want to play the same old game, sure. But I would think we wanted candidates who were open book, whose views were very clear. I certainly want it in a Supreme Court nominee, and I definitely want it in an elected official. So should the rest of you, whether you hail from the left or the right.
If your candidate has to get elected by stealth, by hiding who she or he really is, can that person really be that desirable of a candidate? If the only way you can appeal to voters is not to be too appealing on any one topic, then you're probably not qualified to hold office, not in a representative republic anyway, representative being the key word. I would hope we'd all want candidates like Mike Kole, who were willing to be subjected to the scrutiny of the public. Those will be the truly great leaders, because they have the least to hide. That's who we want in charge, those more interested in representing us than in hiding their past.
I've run for office a couple of times myself, and if it's taught me anything, the only way you really gain people's respect, trust and vote, I mean really earn it, is to let them know where you stand. If you alienate some, that's democracy! That's how it's supposed to work. If they don't like you, they'll vote for someone they do like. Government class 101.
So cheers to Mike Kole, and cheers to any candidate with the balls to do what he does, put his real views right out there in the public for all to see, sink or swim, that makes a helluva candidate.
posted by Rob Beck | 1:11 PM
1 Comments:
Thanks, Rob. I appreciate the supportive commentary.
Fact is, we suffer as a nation as many good people avoid public service in order to spare themselves the vicious, mindless knee-jerk attacks their left or right partisan opponents are so eager to launch. No sweat for me. I've got broad shoulders. For others, it's all the persuasion against participation they need.
Post a Comment
<< Home