Slow News Day

There was quite a lot of activity at the Babblemur site yesterday -- as if there wasn't enough news to discuss already.

First, is the whole change of government thing. It looks like CORD will shift the focus of their change strategy from one that tries to run a sprint between now and April to one that tries to pace itself and gradually rallies public sentiment to its cause. Looking at things from their perspective, I think is a more viable strategy. The council, the acting city manager, the actual city manage (when we get one) will undoubtedly screw up dozens of times in the next few years and if each time CORD says "See, if we would have had an elected mayor this wouldn't have happened!" enough times eventually it may start to stick. It doesn't even have to exactly be true or even plausible, but each time will afford the group the opportunity to call for change. This game plan requires much more patience, but it will be more productive ... I don't know how successful it will be, but it will be more productive. (Here's the NW's take on the matter.)

The second is the rather lively conversation with an interlocutor who goes by the name "Clueless 30Something." Clueless makes several claims over the course of the debate, nearly all of which left me scratching my head:

1.) Something about "defining one's self as a resource." I don't know what this phrase means. It sounds like a neologism that is just now making its way into the parlance of business management magazines.

2.) King -- or anyone who is presumably 30 somethingish years old -- is not old enough to represent the city. Gary Goyke represented the Oshkosh area in the state senate in the 1970s and if memory serve me correctly he was 23 years old when he got elected. Goyke is the prefect example for why its good to get young, fresh minds involved in politics. In 1979 Goyke ran for the U.S. Congress seat vacated by the death of Congressman Bill Steiger. He lost by 0.5% to a guy named Tom Petri.

The fact of the matter is that relevant experience is not necessary to practice politics in America -- and thank God for that! To be a lawyer, you need a law degree. To be doctor, you have to go to med school. To serve in the state legislature you need to be 18 years old and get a lot of votes. End of story. It's every Americans right to practice politics, and what any candidate lacks in "experience" they have have the opportunity to make up for that deficit with ideas, charisma, and good old fashioned hustle. I have meet plenty of people with decades of "experience" in one field or another, but were utterly unqualified to hold office because they could not communicate with voters or they were wedded to a certain mode of thinking.

3.) Elected officials represent "me" -- that is, Clueless 30Something -- in office. They represent their districts, which comprise tens of thousands of people. Don't think that your so special.

4.) People who run for office only do so for a "paycheck." Anyone who can successful run for elected office can succeed in the private sector where they assuredly will be far better compensated for their services. A vast majority of state legislators take pay cuts to serve relative to what they could be making in the private sector because they enjoy the job. To them it's fun. Frankly, legislators don't get paid enough. The inconveniences of representation, like constant travel and endless criticism, often outnumber the perks, like getting a seat at the local cool kids table -- at both the state and federal level.

5.) "What ever happened to the 48yr old lady/guy that worked their way up in a company running for office on their experience[?]" They're still around, just rare. If a guy spends 25 years climbing up the corporate ladder -- why would he throw it all away, likely before he was eligible for his pension, to totally reorganize his life at fraction of the pay. It's difficult enough getting just this kind of person to serve on a city board much less getting them to run for office.

6.) "Politics used to be for individuals that understand how to move from point A to point B because they typically were individuals that HAD experience in business & budgets & family & personal finance." Bullshit. This comment demonstrates an absolute ignorance of the history of American politics. Politics in this country has always been about the personal acquisition of power. In the private sector, power is measure with money. In government, it's measured with influence. There's nothing wrong with acquiring either. The Founding Fathers counted on this and designed a system around this most human of instincts. Show me a 100% altruistic politician and I'll be able to show you a sucker pointing to him.

7.) "Today’s politicians have no clue of the 'picture' when it comes to budgets, moving dept. forward and getting organizations to be productive." Any idiot can balance their check book. The reason why budgets get out of control is that there's a finite amount of money and 132 or 535 different ideas how to spend it. The real job of a politician is to reconcile all of those contrasting opinions and getting a majority of them to agree on a single one. And you thought ordering a pizza for, say, 10 people was a pain in the ass ...

8.) "Let me just say that I believe private and public sector have the same objectives - both are in the business to service a contract in hopes of repeat business." This is fundamentally incorrect. The "business" of government is in many ways just the opposite of trying to get "repeat customers" -- the government doesn't want people who liked getting welfare so much the first time that they want more. Government doesn't want criminals who had so much fun in prison that want to come back. And believe it or not, the IRS doesn't really like doing audits either. Complicating these matters further is the fact that there is no one CEO in legislative government. In Wisconsin, there are 132 CEOs. In Washington, there are 535. Management experience doesn't help so much in a legislature because you can order people around all you want and no one has to listen to you.

9.) There are only two ways someone can win the 54th Assembly seat spending only $20,000. The first is the opponent also spend roughly that amount and there is no 3rd party interference in the race. The second is if someone meets and discusses his or her vision for the city with every last voter in Oshkosh -- he or she may even need to do it twice. That would take months of full time meeting and greeting around town, 8-12 hours a day, five or six days a week. That's time a candidate can't use to earn income. Say he makes $15 an hour and that it takes 6 months to talk to everyone in town. 15 x 40 hours a week x 4 weeks a month x 6 months = $14,400 in gross lost income. Incumbents don't have this issue because the legislative calender gives them time off to campaign.

Now do you understand why folks, especially successful ones, wouldn't want to run for office. It's expensive to do so, regardless of how much money one raises, and the more money one makes, the more income he or she stands to lose by running a campaign. People with mortgages, small business loans, car loans, students loans, and other ongoing financial obligations in most cases can't afford to take off work to run for an office they might not win.

The last race for the 54th district seat cost each campaign over $100,000 each. There were also several third parties that likely contributed at least that much, so we're looking at a race that cost over $300,000. And that's just for one district. There are three districts per senate seat ... If I were running for the 18th Senate seat, I would prepare myself to raise between $200,000-250,000. That's not to say it will end up costing that much, but you never know.

10.) Many candidates do self-fund their campaigns to a certain extent, they have even been known to take out loans to do so. People who are in office don't have the kinds of money-raising problems that challengers do (see #9).

I don't know if there was an overarching point to be gleaned from Clueless' comments. There's a strange blend of cynicism and idealism wrapped in some misunderstandings of how campaigns are run and how government operates, so I'm not going to bother looking for one.

I don't really have any kind of special ending for this post, so let me just end by saying this: Success is frequently viewed with suspicion and scorn in Oshkosh, particularly in the public arena. It shouldn't be. Voters should want ambitious people to run for office -- that usually means they will act ambitiously when they get in office.