What, exactly, is a “career politician?”
By Brian Schoeneman | Wednesday, December 29th, 2010 | PoliticsOne of the most common – and often devastating – attacks launched by non-incumbent candidates against their opponents is the charge of being a “career politician.” We saw it used effectively by Keith Fimian against Pat Herrity in the Republican primary, and it is one of the most common charges launched by Tea Party candidates who have no elected office experience as a way of turning what should be a benefit – having served before – into a negative. Most recently, I’ve seen many early supporters of recently announced U.S. Senate candidate Jamie Radtke argue that since she isn’t a career politician, she’s exactly what we need to help clean up the mess in Washington.
I guess my legal education has rewired my brain when it comes to these kinds of debates, so I can’t help asking: What exactly is a “career politician?” In fact, who is a politician? What does one have to do to become a “career politician?” And are they really that bad?
I think too many people place too much emphasis on the idea that in order to be a politician, you need to be in elected office. I don’t buy it. There are so many appointed positions in government that one can have an entire career in government service at a high level without ever having been elected to office. Look at President Obama’s cabinet secretaries – 7 of the 15 secretaries have never held elected office, and only one of the cabinet level job holders – White House Chief of Staff, head of the EPA, UN Ambassador, etc. – have held elective office. I think most folks would consider Arne Duncan, Robert Gates or Timothy Geithner to be politicians – as the Secretaries of Education, Defense and Treasury, you see them out on the talking heads shows and out defending the president and his policies all the time. That’s an inherently political job, and those positions are exempt from the Hatch Act requirements that bar civil servants from getting involved in politics. But none of those guys have held elective office. At the same time, many of their colleagues in the cabinet, like Hillary Clinton, Gary Locke and Hilda Solis, have held elective office. It’s entirely possible to have a rewarding career in politics without ever having won an election.
Even outside of government, there is an entire industry of folks – of which I am a part – who make their living on politics. Whether one is a lobbyist, public relations professional, political consultant, professional campaign manager, PAC administrator, or other Government Affairs type, you’re engaged in politics as a profession. I often referred to myself as a politician, even though I have not held elected office, because I am immersed in politics and have been for almost a decade now. I’ve made politics my career because I enjoy the work and I’m good at it. I characterize myself as a veteran political professional in the various bios of me floating around the web. That sounds a lot like being a career politician, doesn’t it? Would anyone argue that the big bosses in the 19th Century – the Boss Tweeds of the world – weren’t politicians? Or that party leaders like Pat Mullins or Brian Moran aren’t politicians because they aren’t elected to public office? I don’t think so. If you make money in politics, it seems pretty clear to me that you’re a politician. And if you make it your career, it seems pretty clear to me you’re a career politician, even if you haven’t sat in the Senate as long as Robert Byrd.
So when I hear Jamie Radtke on Fox News last night railing against “career politicians” and the “idea of building a career in politics” I really have to ask what exactly she considers herself to be. Look at her biography. Right out of college she went to work for Senator Jesse Helms on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She then spent 2 years consulting with the Virginia Department of Taxation. Then she became Political Director at the Virginia Conservative Action PAC. Then she started her own political consulting business, Sovereign Consulting, where she claims she won races against incumbent and moderate Republicans (although VPAP shows no vendor named “Sovereign Consulting,” only one donor named Sovereign Consulting who gave to Ken Cuccinelli, and no money going from candidates to Jamie, with only VCA PAC on record as paying her as a vendor). Then she joined the Tea Party movement and has been President of the Richmond Tea Party and Chair of the Federation of Virginia Tea Party Patriots. From her resume, it looks like she’s never held a job that wasn’t somehow involved in politics or government. How is she not a career politician? How do you complain about career politicians when you’ve never held a job since college that wasn’t government or politics related?
Pat Herrity got labelled a career politician for running for three offices in three years. Jamie Radtke has spent 10 years in politics in various positions – far longer than Herrity and even longer than my own career in politics. It makes no sense for her to act like she isn’t a career politician or that she has no ties to special interests – what else is the Tea Party but a special interest? It’s no different than the NRA, the AFL-CIO or any other group that organizes people for political reasons to lobby government and elect folks who agree with them. That they dislike politicians who they believe have sold out and are harming the country makes them no different than any other group out there, from Emily’s List to the Chamber of Commerce, most of whom would say the same thing about legislators they’re trying to defeat.
I can see why folks like Keith Fimian – someone who literally had no experience in politics, even at the local level, until he decided to run – complain and vilify “career politicians.” Not having spent any time in politics has earned him the right to complain about those of us who earn a living this way. I may disagree with him about it, but he can say it without looking like a hypocrite. It doesn’t make sense, however, for anyone who has made politics their career and held multiple jobs in and outside government and in the political arena to do so. That just looks hypocritical, opportunistic and self-serving.
As the old saying goes, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. I sincerely hope that Jamie Radtke drops the “career politician” nonsense because her glass house won’t last very long if she doesn’t.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
A veteran political professional, long-time Republican party activist and attorney Brian W. Schoeneman has been offering his opinions at Bearing Drift since 2010. He serves on the Board of Virginia Line Media, LLC, which operates Bearing Drift and spends his days representing the U.S. Merchant Marine in Washington, D.C. He hails from Fairfax County, Virginia, where he lives with his wife and son.
Comments
25 Responses to "What, exactly, is a “career politician?”"
There’s a big difference between a career politician and a career in politics. Similarly, there’s a big difference between those who have served in a political role for 20 years because they love representing the people and fighting for a cause, and the constant political opportunist.
In fact, there’s a whole strand of folks you could lump into that category. Cantor, Goodlatte, Wolf… there are a heck of a lot of people whose lives are consumed by politics by the very nature of the job.
Just out of pure consideration for debate — isn’t George Allen a “career politician” by definition? Forced retirements notwithstanding? Isn’t Bob Marshall a “career politician” even though he has held jobs in the private sector for years? And does that really mean anything positive or negative without certain connotations? Lincoln was a “career politician” even though he lost most everything he ran for. Reagan and Nixon were “career politicians” to be sure — and the Dems certainly reminded Reagan of his lack of non-political expertise.
Insofar as Radtke is concerned, she’s had a career in politics to be certain. I wouldn’t stretch it so far as to say she’s a career politician.
There’s another aspect to consider as well — politicians give up an awful lot to run for public office. For instance, Allen is giving up a pretty healthy and successful energy lobbying role in Washington. Cantor was a successful attorney. There are literally hundreds of pols in Virginia who have successful careers who have to give up something safe for the glare of public scrutiny. Not an easy choice.
“Career politician” has connotations, to be sure. But I think it’s easy to dissemble when the moniker fits and when it doesn’t, without pointing fingers at who it benefits or who it doesn’t.
Insofar as the label goes, it doesn’t mean anything until the statement aligns with positive or negative experiences. It’s a useless phrase, IMO.
(I posted some of this on your blog, but figured I could crosspost comments as well — we’ll see where the conversation goes).
(Another cross-posted comment)
Oh, I think it’s pretty clear that everyone other than Bert Misuszawa who has been discussed for U.S. Senate in Virginia is a career politician. Marshall definitely is, Stewart wants to be if he isn’t already, Allen definitely is.
I just don’t think it has the pejorative meaning that folks like Radtke want to give it. I would rather people identify individuals who are the problem than try and throw an entire class of people out there instead – it’s a pure strawman argument.
I’m avoiding the cross-posting stuff.
First of all, I consider “politician” a dirty word. It brings to mind all of the negatives associated with politics. I’d never call myself a politician – even if I were elected – because of that. If elected, I would call myself a public servant. And I would hope that others would understand the reason for the difference.
That being said, I agree with Shaun: there is a world of difference between a career politician and a a career in politics. By stretching that definition as you have in this post, it would indeed include Misuszawa, because the military is as political as anything.
Brian, what has been Jamie’s prior involvement in influencing public policy and decision making? Depending on context isn’t a politician someone elected?
@Vivian –
The only reason “politician” is a dirty word is because good people have left the field to the bad people, and because the politicians are are — by and large — a reflection of the electorate.
Julius Caesar was a public servant.
Turbo, if you read the article, I answered that question.
Shaun: Actually, Julius Caesar gets a bad rap.
Brian: I want to agree with your post. You don’t have to be elected to be a “career politician.” I don’t know what else you’d call someone with a long career in lobbying for instance. I’d certainly call Ed Meese and Karl Rove, for example, politicians even though they never held elected office. Being a (paid) hack for other people’s campaigns makes one as much a politician as running for office oneself.
Vivian: While you don’t have run for elected office to be a politician, everyone who does is, by definition, a politician.
I think Brian has a great point in the comments: by attacking an entire group (i.e. “career politicians”) for the current state of affairs, we run the risk of vilifying a number of good people who have done a number of good things for our Republic–including Ms. Radtke’s former boss, the late, great Jesse Helms. The term “career politician” surely conjures negative images of a would-be ruling class which lives off the taxpayers while making laws that the rest of us must obey, but it would be far fairer for us to instead focus our anger at specific politicians who have gotten us into this mess, like the president’s yes-men Jim Webb and Mark Warner.
In a way, these arguments about career politicians are like watching reruns of the 2008 Democratic primary: “Do we nominate the candidate with years of experience in government service who knows how to work the system to enact the changes we desire or do we select the candidate who is a political tabula rasa, but says everything we want to hear?” Yeah…we know how well that one turned out, don’t we? This comment isn’t direct at Ms. Radtke specifically (I don’t yet know enough about her to form an opinion of her), but more broadly to everyone–in both parties–who automatically dismisses a candidate because he or she has help public office at some point in the past.
@Shaun – totally agree about good people.
@Steve – yes, I know, technically at least. But there are some politicians who are true public servants and then there are, well, politicians. There has to be a way to differentiate between the two.
Vivian – we differentiate by calling the first group “Republicans” and the second group “Democrats.”
Sorry, that was a softball if I ever saw one!
And you guys wonder why I rarely post here.
All in good fun, Viv. I think we could all name folks from our own party that rile us up more than the opposition.
That’s definitely true, Shaun.
Easy on Viv, she gets a pass
Vivian is going to surprise us all in 2011 and save the Republican Party by JOINING.
Come on, Viv. Welcome home!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by saraforamerica, TWT POLITICIAN. TWT POLITICIAN said: What, exactly, is a “career politician?” : Bearing Drift: Virginia …: I think too many people place too much e… http://bit.ly/eobYvm [...]
“Career politician” is simply a codeword for any politician who thinks they are God’s gift to the world and deserve special treatment.
I don’t think that it is a particularly vile or even effective accusation in contrast to some posters here. Dems in general could care less how arrogant or corrupt their politicians are as long as they spout the leftist line du jour. I know that because they’ve said so to me.
Perhaps Republicans are a bit more wary of them but as has been noted above there is no guarantee of goodness either because someone lives and breathes politics or prefers doing something else.
The most important thing is to elect people with a significant track record and to stop looking for “excitement” or “vision” from them. You only end up with the excitement of going over the cliff.
Jamie Radtke did not emerge out of the ether among the grassroots activists in 2009. She might have been an unknown entity to the Tea Party members who were indeed new to politics, but Jamie Radtke has a long and storied history within the Republican Party. Her effort to distance herself from it, to the extent Bob Marshall is willing to go so far as to describe her as a “blank slate” is disengenuous at best. Only in this political environment could experience and developed relationships be considered disqualifying. Jamie Radtke will invite the kind of criticism with which she now must contend if she continues to stand on the pious, yet precarious perch of “holding ‘em accountable”, while refusing to be accountable herself.
Unless and until we know who Jamie Radtke really is, there is no credibility in her self appointed authority to measure anyone else’s “9″ or “12″ to determine our conservative credentials.
@Brian
What a Surprise! A Tea Party candidate runs and there’s a self-proclaimed, moderate Republican on the front lines attacking. Why would I not be surprised it would be you?
You could’ve picked any topic: impact of labeling meat, letter (or phone) marks Republicans are trying to pass instead of earmarks, End-of-Life counseling (or death panels), FCC takeover of the internet or the five of seven liberal agendas that got passed through the current Congress to include the START Treaty.
But who passed it? Self-proclaimed, moderate Democrat-lites who couldn’t hold their own.
If you didn’t notice during the midterms, Obama hung his House cronies out to dry but he surely was concerned about the Governorships and the Senate. Yeah, he made a visit to his Communist Comrade in Northern Virginia, but that was about the only House visit he made.
Honestly, Brian… What is your personal beef with non-establishment politicians?
I never really understood the strategy of attacking a profession (career politicians) while trying to become a part of it. About like going into an job interview and telling the person doing the hiring that the open position is only for corrupt individuals.
Brandon, really it makes perfect sense from the perspective of the represented. You want to hire somebody to represent you, not just allow them to get the keys to power.
George Washington probably could have been king. Not only did he decline, but he only served 2 terms setting the stage for our country’s future.
It isn’t so much attacking as to recognize human failings and how corrupting power can be. Especially for weak minds of little character. Those that have access to great power that restrain themselves enough as to not abuse it, are to be held in the highest regard. Why would we not want the best? Why would we not criticize the corrupt?
One of my favorite quotes is by Freidrich Nietzche and it certainly should be read to every incoming elected freshman:
“Those that go off to fight monsters should take care lest they become monsters themselves in the process”
“As you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you”
We all know many first timers go into political office with the best of intentions. They want to serve their country. Unfortunately, with organized seduction and bribery and being brain washed to believe that principle isn’t possible, we often end up with men that compromise themselves and their constituents. The first step into the shedding of values is the hardest, but there after, it becomes easier to prositute yourself and sell out the people that gave you their trust to represent them.
Therefore when you encounter an individual whose sole motivation is to aquire power, you know there is little hope that they would truly represent you. I think the abuse of power is the main concern. It is pretty evident that true public servants are rare and people wish to try to mitigate that corruption with regular turnover in office.
@Shaun – um, no. Not going to happen.
@Brandon – dead on.
Britt: I don’t necessarily disagree with you: while I favor term limits to avoid the very problem you’re describing, I think there are a number of good men and women who remain faithful public servants and representatives of the values they were elected to promote–despite making a career of politics. However, I must quibble with your example of George Washington.
I love Washington–he’s my favorite historical president–and I wish more of our political leaders emulated Washington’s prudence, but to describe him as a part-time politician is to ignore the fact that he served in the House of Burgesses for several decades beginning in 1758, was a delegate to the First Continental Congress and chaired the Constitutional Convention. There were occasional periods of time when he did not hold elected office, but Washington was a key member of Virginia’s political elite (or as we say today “establishment”), as were almost all of our Founding Fathers.
John,
I don’t have a problem with non-establishment politicians. I have a problem with hypocrites. I have a problem with folks whonhave been intimately involved in politics trying to portray themselves as outsiders because that’s the trick du jour to get elected.
If an establishment Republican, say Bob Marshall, was using the same rhetoric that Radtke used, I would just as quickly be on I’m for it.
Jason, your point about Washington is absolutely right.
Jason, I don’t disagree with your point on Washington. My point there was his self-restraint and firm grip on reality. I don’t really have a problem with those continually in office or “professional politicians.
Just as long as they actually feel a desire to represent and not hold office for the sake of it.
I am against term limits although I have been waivering a bit on that lately. It is just as self-compromising to have the law protect us from our own votes as it is for them to regulate what we eat in order to protect us. We get the government we deserve and hopefully we will learn from it. As you point out, why cheat ourselves of those that perform exceptionally such as Washington and others based on an arbitrary number. We are adults and we should be able to vote for the very best – career politician or not.
I am simply pointing to the motivation of many when the criticize career politicians in general. That too is painting with a broad brush but what you are seeing is a symptom of a natural desire for self-preservation. A bit healthy of a reaction. Not being a career politician is not an automatic qualification, but it is a selling point. Especially when the public at large hold such miniscule approval numbers for our representatives and continually suspect that they are not true servants of the public trust.
If career politicians suffer a more difficult time getting re-elected, often it was something of their own doing. Their troubles were earned and redemption must likewise be earned.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.