July 4th Approaches and the Experiment Continues
I was talking with a friend one night and mentioned that Dr. Cornel West was running for president in the Green Party. My friend responded that he did not understand why Dr. West was entering the race. He felt that West would make a horrible president because he has no conventional political experience. This same reasoning is applied, by some, to the Williamson presidential campaign. It is an opinion not a rule. Political experience is not required to run for or be president of the U.S. Williamson and Dr. West have every right to throw their hats in the ring. As a democracy, voters should be encouraged to choose the candidate they believe best represents their interests. When this country was founded, there were no seasoned politicians to run this new enterprise. Early presidents were selected for their status as landowners, their education, and their bravery during the revolution.
I believe that the problem some people have with Dr. West and Williamson for candidates is that they are not conventional. They have political experience, but it is not the kind of experience that the average American recognizes. They helped to organize and participated in various grass roots political organizations. For most citizens to feel comfortable a candidate must have held sanctioned political office such as senator, congressman, governor, or maybe mayor, before being taken seriously as a presidential candidate, unless you are Donald J. Trump. You should be on the inside of the political machine to understand how things work. It is another assumption. There is no rule governing that.
Expectations
As Americans we have been trained to limit our expectations regarding what government can do on our behalf. Universal health care, a living wage, ending poverty and homelessness, tuition-free education, etc., are always deemed not politically feasible. Political feasibility is an analysis performed to determine the likely hood of the success or failure of a piece of legislation put before legislators or the public. At one time, Social Security was not considered politically feasible. At one time, the right for women to vote was not considered politically feasible. At one time, the abolition of slavery was not considered politically feasible. At one time, civil rights were not considered politically feasible. All those movements were the product of a ground swell of activity from grass root organizations, not from the legislative, judicial, or executive branches of government. Political feasibility helps to maintain the status quo. It is not a tool leaders should rely heavily upon.
Political Feasibility
It was recently reported by the “Washington Post” that for over a year the DOJ and FBI delayed an investigation into the actions of the former president that led up to the January 6th insurrection. This is an example of analysis paralysis. The institutions were more concerned with how it would look to investigate a former president rather than getting to the bottom of the cause of one of the most significant events in American history. Trying to “lead” from a place of what is politically feasible isn’t effective. It is not leadership. You must lead from a space of, ‘this is what we need to do,’ otherwise you may end up with little to no movement in the direction of what is needed. Candidates should lead with more heart as well as their head. Franklin D. Roosevelt is an example of a U.S. President who acted without strict reliance on political feasibility analysis. His executive orders, programs, and reforms to lift the country out of financial depression in the 40s were highly unpopular among many financial titans of the time. He believed that the policy changes were needed to relieve suffering and to get the country back on its feet. Roosevelt was not perfect, but he led when it was required.
Seasoned Politicians
This question of who is seasoned enough to deal with all the challenges of running a country as large and diverse as the U.S. is an interesting one. Marianne Williamson has asked, ‘why it is that we are convinced that the only people who can get us out of the ditch we are in are the same people who drove us into the ditch to begin with?’ It is very much like doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. For quite a while it had been that only middle-aged or older white men of means were considered capable to lead the nation. Since my birth, all the elected presidents had previous, conventional, political experience, John F. Kennedy (1961-1963), Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969), Richard Nixon (1969-1974), Gerald Ford (1974-1977), Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), George H. W. Bush (1989-1993), Bill Clinton (1993-2001), George W. Bush (2001-2009), Barack Obama (2009-2017), Donald Trump (2017-2021), Joe Biden (2021-present). The country’s first black president, Barack Obama, was elected twice (2009–2017). After his two terms the country went back to the older white businessman model. All these men were “seasoned” politicians. Yet somehow the country is now teetering on the edge of fascism, the ideology that it fought a war to defeat in 1945. These were experienced politicians, but not experienced enough to maintain democracy.
The experiment of governance by and for the rich and powerful is proving to not be sustainable. Part of the founding of the country was to end the tyranny of rule by kings and queens. Now we have replaced those figure heads with the one percent and powerful corporate entities. Having a majority of the country living in economic desperation stifles its development. People like Dr. Cornel West and Marianne Williamson carry this critical message. It is not a politically convenient one, but it is necessary to be heard, and could be even more powerful coming from within the White House, from the bully pulpit of the president.
Government Machinery
I understand that there is a level of comfort that people feel by having someone at the machinery of government who has knowledge of where all the buttons and widgets are to make it run the way that it has been for years. However, you also want that person to know the right buttons and widgets to engage and when to engage them. Doing that which has always been done for expedience or because the goal is to be re-elected is not a good enough reason to continue with policies that no longer serve the people.
Is it a sound strategy to continue with the status quo when so many critical institutions are failing? For example, “ProPublica” recently reported that in addition to Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas receiving unreported gifts from conservative billionaire Harlan Crow, Samuel Alito has also received gifts of luxury travel and lodging from the rich conservative donor, Paul Singer, who has had business before the court. Justice Alito has not publicly reported his luxury fishing trips. Currently the court does not have a set of ethical guidelines to follow. This is a weakness in the judicial branch.
It is not considered conventional for a presidential candidate to speak seriously of how love, equality, peace, and justice are missing from our current system of politics. A candidate who believes in strength through the military and weapons build up is considered far more practical. Weapons are tangible and we can predict the results of using them. However, they have yet to achieve the goals of long-term safety and peace.
Knowing how things have worked in the past is important if you want to maintain the status quo. It is also important if you want to avoid repeating mistakes. The president has a cabinet of advisors. An intelligent, empathetic person can make sound “presidential” decisions based on their experience and the good advice they receive. You don’t necessarily have to be an experienced politician. You should be someone with the integrity and courage to make decisions that may not necessarily be politically feasible but are necessary for the good of the country. When you hear the words "I alone can fix it," that is a clear warning sign of danger.
Taking many perspectives under consideration, not just the politically feasible ones, before making a critical decision is important. A good leader should be capable of this. A good leader is someone willing to execute from a new playbook when necessary. The job of president is not for narrowly focused political experts. Running a country is different from running a science lab or a business. Fluidity, flexibility, and the ability to see things from multiple viewpoints is very important. I believe that Williamson and Dr. West have the capacity to do what is needed without waiting until there is significant political consensus. The analysis of political feasibility has its benefits, but it should not replace leadership. Of course, there is a place for building consensus, but if it interferes with doing what you know is immediately needed then it should be placed on the back burner while you attend to what needs to be done.