Career politicians vs. political outsiders

[ConservativeElector2]

Due to actor Hill Harper's apparent run for the senate seat of MI, I thought recently about who I am preferring and it seems to be a strange mix. I prefer political outsiders when they run as Democrats, but I am more inclined to support Republicans who have held elected offices already.

[vcczar]

I can't really respond to this poll because I don't get excited about someone based on their being an insider or an outsider.

[Pringles]

Same as V. Though I tend to prefer career politicians. Unless there are outsiders that break the stereotype they're often associated with each respective party. (Outsiders in the GOP are generally, MAGA activists these days, while outsiders in the Democrats are Progressives) I despise both. 

[Rezi]

I agree with the general concept that the Democratic outsiders are generally better than GOP outsiders, but the status alone isn't really what appeals to me. I feel Dem outsiders can tend to vary a lot more in their ideology while almost every GOP outsider that makes it into office is a nutjob.

[WVProgressive]

You don’t send a plumber to do an electrician’s job! Experience matters, career politicians all the way!

[ShortKing]

I think there are good and valid reasons to value what an outsider can provide, but in general, I prefer an experienced hand at the reins of government. 

[MrPotatoTed]

When you're hiring a plumber, do you want a career plumber or a plumber outsider?

;c)

[pilight]

If I wanted an outsider, I wouldn't be voting for a larger party candidate

[Cal]

On 4/17/2023 at 6:35 PM, WVProgressive said:

You don’t send a plumber to do an electrician’s job! Experience matters, career politicians all the way!

 

On 4/18/2023 at 9:59 AM, MrPotatoTed said:

When you're hiring a plumber, do you want a career plumber or a plumber outsider?

;c)

I think experience matters, but a lot less than most people think. My experience working with an interest group (albeit at the state level) is that legislators can't be expected to be experts on the vast majority of things that are necessary to do their job. When we'd talk about legislation in a state representatives office, we knew they'd be going and talking with other lobbyists, staff, and policy experts before coming to a conclusion on if they'd sponsor something, support it generally, send it to unofficial hell (summer study) or the like. 

Why we liked working with politicians that had been in office for several years is not because they were necessarily better at understanding WHAT makes government work and what the right policy decision is, but instead HOW to make government work and understanding that their role is primarily as the grease in the wheel of the political process and a public image. This is a skillset that you don't need to be in politics actively to pick up, though it's certainly going to make it a hell of a lot higher of a chance. I don't doubt that there are some successful businessmen, non-profit leaders, or what-have-you that could do a better job than the typical establishment politician. By the time a politician has been around a few years they typically (but not always) understand that politics is a team sport and who you surround yourself with is key. But many professions can provide that same skillset. 

So in conclusion, experience does matter to me and can potentially have an impact on the effectiveness of an individual to legislate/govern, but it's not in my top priorities.

[MrPotatoTed]

16 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

. My experience working with an interest group (albeit at the state level) is that legislators can't be expected to be experts on the vast majority of things that are necessary to do their job.

Piggybacking on this for a moment:

I used to work a bit with Representative Greg Pence (the former Vice President's brother).  He told me for example that one of the problems with regulating various companies/industries is that those companies and industries can afford much better experts than Congress can.  With their limited staffer budget, they can't possible afford to hire someone who knows all the tax loopholes or banking tricks, etc.  And then imagine if all 435 elected members of congress needed to hire one to advise each of them independently.  So we end up with college interns, at best, who of course are not experts at all -- advising on major national policies.

[Cal]

31 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Piggybacking on this for a moment:

I used to work a bit with Representative Greg Pence (the former Vice President's brother).  He told me for example that one of the problems with regulating various companies/industries is that those companies and industries can afford much better experts than Congress can.  With their limited staffer budget, they can't possible afford to hire someone who knows all the tax loopholes or banking tricks, etc.  And then imagine if all 435 elected members of congress needed to hire one to advise each of them independently.  So we end up with college interns, at best, who of course are not experts at all -- advising on major national policies.

I was sent to talk to representatives about small cells, which, if you're unfamiliar, is best summed up as (kinda) the equivalent of a WiFi extender for mobile networks. I wrote dozens of memos on the topic and spoke to policy gurus from within the group I worked for, several municipal-level officers from various cities, AT&T lobbyists, and whatnot. By all means a very highly technical and wonky discussion that took a ton of time to understand well enough to convey to those I was talked with communicating with. 

And, just like you said, all as a college intern getting paid about $1,500 a month with no technical background at all. 

While I did my best to learn from those more knowledgeable from me, it's not uncommon for a few of the voices in someone's ear to be totally out of their element, and I certainly was. So you're definitely right that oftentimes even the "policy experts" or the ones speaking on their behalf like myself are perhaps not so qualified. That's the unfortunate reality of the process. However! The best legislators I worked with didn't rely just on us and REALLY forced us to show our work and provide an independent backing what we are saying. If we wanted to modify a resolution we had talked to them about before, they weren't just asking what that modification was, but WHO decided there was a change that needed to be made.

For the small cells work I did, a lot of it was based around one professor and city manager who focused hardcore on municipal public policy in regards to internet/mobile network infrastructure and pushed us and his representative to lobby for changes to a bill that had been pushed through by mobile network lobbyists back in 2017/2018 when small cells were kicking off across the country, and TN's small cells bill from back then essentially a copy-paste of AT&T's bill they'd been giving out to state legislators and interest groups across the country. My work being in 2021(maybe 2020? I feel old now that I can't recall), there was a lot of feedback and legislative history to sort through showing how that implementation had gone, issues, successes, etc. Tennessee has an independent research type institution that is intended to give non-biased analysis of the impact of proposed bills and stuff too which was helpful.

All that to say... some legislators wanted to know all of that, and some didn't. The "best" ones were most often those with the most experience that had been around the block a few times. But they weren't the only ones. There is also some confirmation bias there that if you serve for one term and you don't have what it takes, you're probably not running again or the Party is going to oppose your candidacy for being too difficult to work with (or in some cases... too EASY to work with...). So the party would probably weed you out pretty quick if you didn't have the right mindset for the chamber. Either way though, you're absolutely right that it's often interns handling the bulk of that information. A good legislator (in my experience) knows to always ask what the benefit is for the person proposing it, what effect it will potentially have(including unintended effects from a sneaky reading or poor drafting which is very common), and to verify that with as many sources as possible.