Do We Need Elected Experience?

We had a primary for mayor in Seattle yesterday (well, it really lasted for weeks since it was done by mail in ballot). The race is still too close to call, but it appears the incumbent mayor is either out of the race, or will have an uphill battle for re-election. The two possible candidates for mayor may be election newbees. They have never held an elected office before (although both of them have been active in a variety of community issues). We also have one candidate for county executive who is an election newbee. And that is the rub against them. Or at least, that is what the political "elite" are saying.

I also have been having a little discussion with friends throughout the country about term limits in the context of how much money is thrown around in politics and for political issues.

I have a ton of thoughts about this criticism, this idea that to run for higher office, you know, something other than dog catcher, you have to have elected office experience.

It seems that in slightly more than 200 years we have gone from citizen "legislators" to professional politicians. You know, the folks who have spent their whole careers in one elected office or another. I can name dozens: Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Jerry Brown, Warren Magnuson, Maria Cantwell, Chris Gregoire...and Seattle's current mayor who didn't go to college so he could begin working in politics and has done nothing else for 40 years. 40 years.

There are many professions where having experience, lots of experience, is a good thing. Plumbers for instance. A policeman who has street instincts. A general who has seen battle. But in politics, really, there is a huge body of knowledge already in existence for the elected officials to learn from and draw upon. When you're mayor you're not out fixing the water main, but you are having to make it happen. Is someone who has held an elected office their whole life any better at making that happen than a former banker or car dealer or lawyer?

Plus, entrenched elected officials begin to care about one thing, it seems, and that is getting elected. Over and over again. So decisions about fixing the pothole become political calculus because so much more rides on making a decision. Pleasing a donor, for instance. Which isn't to say newbees don't make decisions upon the same math once they are elected. But when you have been there forever, doesn't it become habit?

Then there is the invincibility factor. I think it is just human nature to believe once you're elected over and over that you're infallible in the eyes of the voters. You may become a little cocky. Seattle's mayor ungraciously called the voters grumpy and insecure (hmm, could he be "projecting?). One of the reasons President Bush's incredibly high favorable ratings went into the cellar so quickly is because he could not admit he made mistakes about Iraq or Hurricane Katrina. The same can be said about Seattle's mayor. When you come to believe your invincible you don't have to admit mistakes. Heck, you don't make them!

What is ironic here in Seattle is the same folks who think the two remaining candidates (or who may be the remaining candidates) are not "seasoned" enough are the same folks who voted, enthusiastically, for an unseasoned, Freshman US Senator as President of the United States. Seems like he is doing ok so far, eh?

I tend to think novices to elected office, while a risk, have a lot to offer. Fresh ideas, little corruption, humility, fire in the gut to prove yourself. And these days, there is nothing wrong with those qualities.