Impolitic

Many years ago, at a Board meeting in my synagogue, one of our members proposed himself for the position of President when the nominating committee presented its report. Actually he wasn't a member of the Board, nor had he been active in synagogue affairs up until that time. But he recognized that some problems existed, and suggested that he was the man to fix them. Chutzpah. One of the Board members suggested that rather than start at the top he become more involved in the congregation's structure as it already was, and work his way up.

I never saw him again.

There's a kind of leadership style which has a boss instructing his employee “Don't tell me the problems – tell me the solutions.” The approach bespeaks the view that the leader is there simply to supervise the difficulties that others recognize, and to get credit for leading everyone out of the wilderness. But it's an even more troublesome situation when the leader believes that he can identify – indeed he has already identified – the problems that exist, and that he can solve them all. It's the approach of the “outsider” who can correct the errors caused by those who had theretofore been involved. It's his view that it takes someone not caught up in the organization's internal politics.

And that's where we are now. The current campaign for the Republican nomination pits an individual who has no experience in organized politics and government against those who have. Whatever the personal qualifications of the various candidates, the current leader in the race has no experience governing but claims that he can solve all of our country's problems. He's a populist whose main qualification, in the eyes of voters, is that he's a strong (loud) advocate of positions which provide simple solutions to complex problems – the ones created by those who have spent their careers dealing with them. His lack of tact and his inability to relate to those with whom he would have to deal are also strengths, and would bring others around to his positions. Chutzpah! Bluster and ego are no substitute for knowledge, experience and alliances. Tired of international problems, his supporters are not concerned about whether other nations would eventually sign on. They view his opportunity to speak out, to voice their biases, as the long-lost benefit of a bully pulpit. They don't care that the inexperienced and undisciplined man using it is a pulpit bully.

Although there are marked differences, there is a similar “insider-outsider” battle in the Democratic Party. While both of the major contenders for the nomination are long-time politicians – both having served in the Senate – their backgrounds, especially in terms of relating to the party's members, is entirely different. While one is among the party loyal, the other has spent most of his career as an “independent,” only recently joining with the party he now wishes to lead. And he espouses an economic form (socialism) that is very different from what the Founding Fathers proposed and what what we and those who preceded us have experienced. He, too, is a populist, offering appealing and simple solutions to complex problems. They're flawed solutions that would be difficult for many of the candidate's newly acquired colleagues to support, but they raise the hopes of countless voters – many of them new voters.

From my perspective, none of the candidates is an appropriate choice. But my perspective isn't relevant. I'll vote in my state's primary, but I'll be focused on choosing the lesser of evils. And one vote won't affect the overall trend. Yes I know that according to our philosophy every vote counts, but I don't see that as the reality – and in this particular race the early politicking an sniping will carry the day. Whatever happens, we'll lose.