Politicians Don’t Need To Get Me In Order to Get My Vote


A recent poll shows that most people think Hilary Clinton is able to relate to ordinary people. This comes after a firestorm over her comments on wealth and how her years of public service has made her out of touch. The plain fact is that it does not matter how much a politician can relate to people, they simply need to be effective.

A CEO does not have had to come from a working class background to know workers like higher wages. Workers rely on their employers to keep people gainfully employed. The same is true for politicians. As a voter, I need someone who can progress toward a more perfect union. Show me a resume rather than your roots.

Criticism over Washington insiders is misguided for one important idea. Government works in particular ways that legislators discover how to manage with experience. Having experience at legislating does not deem someone as being ineffective, yet it could prove them to be more able to be productive. When it comes to working the halls of congress and finding compromise to produce legislation that matters, wouldn’t it be advisable to have a professional at the helm?

The attack on insiders or career politicians comes from a logical fallacy. It states that Washington is broken and therefore the people who are running it are the ones who broke it, hence why they need to be replaced. Except this does not develop any real causation as to why Congress cannot seem to function, it just places the blame. The true cause is the loss of compromise and revision.

Compromise and revision is the productive outcome of diversity. If both sides are holding to a position and they need to pass important legislation, then compromise is the only productive means to progress. At the same time, it would be immature to think there is a simple yes or no vote to every issue. Yet it another fallacy to assume that there is only two ways to decide on a topic.

The issue of the Affordable Care Act is a perfect example. Some might have people think that you can either be for it all or an against it all leaving out the possibilities in between. Instead of politicians seeking to repeal or support Obamacare as is, the conversation should be how to revise the health care system with sensible legislation. Complex problems sometimes have very simple answers, which is what many claim to have, yet simple answers come from a complicated thought process. The issues America faces are too large for any one faction to disseminate, but can be figured out though united compromise.

According to some, Eric Cantor lost in his primary for focusing on the national scene rather than his home district. Yet Cantor was holding a seat at the federal level that is supposed to be focused on national politics. Voters should be more focused on local and state politicians if they want more direct results that affect their day to day lives. National elections focus on national issues because the people elected need to deal with national problems. A representative should be taking his or her district’s concerns into the unity compromise, so as the diversity of the country produces the most advanced answers to today’s societal issues.

Each election cycle provides the people with a choice, as it is designed to do. The choice it to affirm that the person in office is doing a good job compared to the possible job another candidate could do. In either case a candidate should tell me how she or he will compromise, not how you know me. My main focus is on a productive government, which comes from compromising officials.