Inexperienced candidates are not better than career politicians

Last week I wrote a column about California’s Senate candidate debate where I analyzed each candidate’s performance. In case you didn’t read it, they were all terrible.

During the debate, I was reminded about how often some candidates accuse others of being “career politicians.” You’ve heard this countless times during speeches and political debates – one candidate derogatorily calling another a career politician. Well, what information is that supposed to tell us about the target candidate?

This claim is supposed to make you associate certain characteristics with the candidate. As far as I can tell, you’re meant to think that the accused is ineffective, corrupt, that they have only their own political careers in mind, and that they’re out of touch with the issues affecting voters. In the minds of voters, it’s meant to designate someone as incapable or unwilling to do what needs to be done to improve our country or community. 

There’s something insidious going on here. The designation is supposed to separate politicians from new arrivals with little political experience. Steve Garvey used the term to separate himself from the democratic candidates. As if having someone with no political experience is more desirable. Whatever you think about the performance of career politicians, they’re more equipped to serve than individuals like Garvey or the Terminator. Like I stated in my previous column, Garvey thinking that he should be a politician is a result of a mix of arrogance and ignorance – the same was the case with Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

It’s like a mechanic calling a doctor a “career pediatrician.” As if you should take your kids to the garage for their check-up. However much damage a bad pediatrician can cause, a mechanic would fare even worse. Of course, this isn’t a perfect analogy and if a pediatrician does poorly, they eventually lose their license while a bad politician often faces no consequences. But the point is that there is no job in the world where it’s better to have someone with no experience.

I believe that the effectiveness of the “career politician” designation comes from the public’s conception that being a politician requires no special training or expertise. Of course, we live in a democracy so these positions are open to everyone by design. Legally, there is no educational requirement to be elected and I’m not suggesting that we introduce one. The question is, is it in our interest to elect individuals who don’t know what they’re doing? The answer should be clear.

Experienced politicians will have typically studied a field relevant to some aspect of running the country, whether it’s the legal system, political science, economics, or foreign policy. They will have been exposed to the workings of our political system and the careful dance that is often needed to get laws passed. 

Compared to the average folk, this translates to a heightened ability to discern whether a given policy will have the desired effect or whether a trade-off is worth the benefit. Contrary to appearances, we should think of political office like we think of any other job.

Some may point to individuals like Donald Trump as a great example of someone who came into the political arena with no prior experience, and did well as president. Whether or not you think that Trump’s administration was successful, just because there are examples of inexperienced individuals with successful political careers doesn’t mean that it’s typically desirable over experienced candidates.

I understand the urge to shake things up – politicians frustrate us to no end and regularly appear to have no common sense. Although many politicians do lack common sense, it’s also true that this perception is unduly exacerbated by the public’s lack of knowledge of the complexities involved in policy decisions. 

Nevertheless, there are other ways of improving the system. If we were frustrated with our pediatrician, we would seek other pediatricians or introduce reforms in the medical field. 

The answer isn’t to hand over the reins to someone with no relevant experience. Such candidates are not guaranteed to fail but we should not be actively seeking them. 

Candidates should be judged by their merits and their failures, not by whether someone calls them a career politician.

Rafael Perez is a doctoral candidate in philosophy at the University of Rochester. You can reach him at rafaelperezocregister@gmail.com.