No Loser in Politics

Share:

In 2007, I worked as a consultant for the Get Out The Vote Initiative for the Bruce Lunsford-Greg Stumbo campaign to be the Democratic nominee for governor. On election night in May, they lost that campaign to the now Governor Steve Beshear and his running mate.  Several other staff members and I were gathered at a nice hotel in Louisville when we heard the news that our candidate had lost the race.  A little heartbroken, we listened to Stumbo and then Lunsford give brief speeches.  They then greeted campaign workers and other people who had attended the party.  After getting a brush off from Lunsford, I was able to speak to Stumbo.  I told him that I had been forward to him being Lieutenant Governor and that I was sorry it didn’t work out.  This is what he told me:

“There are no losers in politics, son.  You may not always win, but you never lose.”

You Win

This is one quote that I have never forgotten.  Shortly after this loss, a story broke in the news about the representative from Stumbo’s home district not seeking re-election.  A few days later, Stumbo announced that he would be running for that seat. He was elected in 2008 and when he assumed office he was also elected as Kentucky Speaker of the House of Representatives.  It must be noted that Stumbo had served in that in the House from 1980-2003 and was the Majority Leader from 1985-2003 before becoming Attorney General.

The Point

You may be thinking that this is a neat story, but what’s the point.  The point is that there is a lot of good-old-boy networking in play in politics, especially on the state level.  Stumbo had a lot of caché that he could bank on, assuming his bid for lieutenant governor fell through.  In his case, he knew a lot of people and it helped him out.  Stumbo has in turn helped out Kentuckians and people of his home district as much as possible.  Stumbo knows how to play the political game, but he also knows how to bring home the bacon (so to speak) to keep his constituents happy.  Unfortunately, there are too many politicians in our country that use this good-old-boy network as an act of despotism.  In the end, it’s the politician and their friends that seem to reap all the rewards while the average person gets screwed over.  As long as there are people, like Stumbo, who use their network to do good things for their constituents, I’m usually okay with that.  But when people use it to do bad things, I don’t like it too much. What voters need to do is evaluate their elected officials. Are they doing well by the voters?  If so, then they are probably alright and doing the best they can.  If that isn’t the case, then it may be time to look elsewhere for your elected officials.

6 Things I Know About Politicking

Share:

As a kid, my dad used to take me around to political meetings.  I would go from a hot dog dinner one night to next night, when we would go to lecture hall that was prepared for a speech from a gubernatorial candidate. I used to watch all the candidates and listen to their thoughts on politics and how to campaign.  Needless to say, I picked up a few things along the way.  Here’s a list of six things I learned about politicking (means influencing people through the use of politics) early on:

1)      Always know where you stand. You need to know where you are on the issues and on people.  You also want to know where people stand in relation to you.

2)      Every vote counts.  When you are out campaigning, every vote matters.  It doesn’t matter whether a person is a Democrat, Republican or Independent.  Even if you see a guy out mowing his grass while on the campaign trail, he is a vote.  Stop and talk to him.

3)      You have to make it happen.  Hard work matters.  You can’t sit back and wait for someone else to do it for you.

4)      Trust your friends and help them if you can.  In politics, it is a really small world. You want to keep and nurture your friendships and alliances.

5)      Believe in all levels of government.  Everything is intertwined. You may not like everything about your federal, state or local government, but you need to believe in the principles that founded those institutions.  If you don’t like something about the government then, refer to number three.

6)      Nurture the next generation.  If it wasn’t for the men and women who taught me about politics as a kid, I wouldn’t be doing this today.  I was nurtured and I think that we should do the same for the kids that are coming up now.

 

These are six key principles that I picked up very early on in life, well before the age of 12.  One of the most important people who taught me these things was Charlie Cox.  He was this funny old guy who treated me like a grandson.  He knew the ins and outs of politics and didn’t mind sharing a few tips with me as a kid. Charlie passed away over Memorial Day weekend.  He will be missed.

The Chair Shot Part Two: WWE as a business model for the Government

Share:

Yesterday I posted The Chair Shot Part One.  Today, let’s continue the discussion.

In a recent article in “The New Yorker”, Avi Steinberg profiled the WWE, and in particular an effort by wrestler and former U.F.C. champion Brock Lesnar’s return to wrestling and his recent fight with WWE superstar John Cena.  Lesnar’s return to the WWE was part scripted and part what he wanted (to bring legitimacy back to professional wrestling).  According to Steinberg:

“The W.W.E.’s current storyline for Lesnar, of a hideously angry, mid-career champ who returns to the league believing that he’s the only authentic fighter in a world of imposters and clowns isn’t just a gimmick cooked up by the writers. It speaks to Lesnar’s actual situation. It also makes for wicked good TV…The W.W.E. understands the heart of its American male audience and, as usual, gives them a brightly lit stage on which to work out some very real conflicts.”

Here is the point.  A massive entertainment industry, like the WWE, believes it knows what the American people want.  There are 535 voting members of Congress, 9 Supreme Court Justices, a President and Vice-President with a cabinet of 20 members who seem to have no clue as to what the American people want or need.  Sure they have some theories, like an improved health care system, but they miss the boat on most of the issues and make issues of out things that are not issues at all.

To get to the heart of why the WWE knows how to run a business and the government does not, I sat down with die-hard WWE fan Gabe Fig to ask him his thoughts on the matter.

PS: Is there anything that you think Obama or Romney could learn from the WWE?

GF: Yes. Stick with what works and get rid of what doesn’t. Behind all of the glitz, glam, championship belts, and the superstars there exists a company that is out to please the people. Pleasing the people equals a big profit. Obviously, government doesn’t exist necessarily to “make a profit”; however, they SHOULD operate to be fiscally sound. Here’s an argument I recently made:

The US currently spends about $721 billion per year on defense. If that total was reduced to $243 billion we’d still be spending more than twice as much as China (which is #2 on the defense spending scale). Now, here’s where I always get a lot of heat: Much of that defense spending is spent on the “War on Terror”. But, let’s look at some numbers: 2,819 people died during the 9/11 attacks, but the US tops that every FOUR DAYS with approximately 3,284 deaths from “illnesses directly caused or worsened by being overweight”. The National Institutes of Health says it “invests over $30.9 billion annually in medical research for the American people.” So, beyond just unsustainable spending we have fiscal policies that really make no sense at all, but I’m sure it helps some politicians sleep well at night under a big, cozy blanket of self-importance.

Vince McMahon would NEVER spend an exorbitant amount of money developing & “pushing” (read promoting) a wrestler that just doesn’t have the potential to be a main-eventer. Sometimes they do and the results just don’t yield anything. Take “The Miz”.  He headlined WrestleMania 27 as the WWE Champion and at WrestleMania 28 he had only a small supporting role in a 6-man tag match (12 men total, meaning 2 teams with 6 members). When that doesn’t work, they change and evolve until they find something that works. So, that’s what Obama & Romney need to do… not continually push “main-event-sounding policies”, i.e. a big ass defense budget when the money could be better spent (or *gasp* NOT SPENT by government at least) elsewhere.

After my interview with this veteran fan, it really got me thinking how the WWE and American politics are similar. In terms of campaigning, I think that both are pretty equal but I think I would have to give a slight edge to the WWE.  Sure, both are known for their showmanship, spiffy outfits and the harsh words to an opponent.  The reason the edge goes to the WWE, as my interviewee noted, Vince McMahon would NEVER spend an exorbitant amount of money on a wrestler that does not have the potential to be a main eventer.  This year, one of the presidential candidates will spend several million dollars to LOSE an election.  However, the one with the most winning personality who can woo the most voters will spend several million dollars to be the President of the United States.  Just taking the WWE model, according to the interviewee, spending large sums of money to win an election would be okay because that one candidate was the “main eventer” but the other candidate just turns out to be an also ran, who wasted a lot of money to be a loser.

Other than campaigning, the American government is, by its nature, wasteful. We spend billions on defense and millions on salaries for politicians.  I am not saying that I think we should cut out programs and cut spending everywhere but sometimes there are things out there that just do not work.  Those programs either need to be cut or should be overhauled to where they provide the right service.  That is called fiscal responsibility and Vince McMahon knows a thing or two about that.  Maybe the next president could make Vince McMahon a Secretary.  I see several options on the board that might make sense; Treasury, Interior, Commerce and Labor are cabinet level.  Just don’t make him Secretary of Defense or Homeland Security.

The Chair Shot Part One: Politics and the WWE

Share:

I’ve been reading a novel titled “King of Swords” by Russell Blake.  As I was reading through the book I came across a section portraying the nature of American political campaigning while actually describing the Mexican counterpart:

“[Hector De La Silva] had already begun the convoluted and colorful campaigning that        made Mexican elections something of a spectacle—the fiery rhetoric and accusations vivid and damning, the promises lofty and inspiring.  Nobody actually believed anything the candidates said—history had shown that no matter who was in power, the campaign promises were immediately forgotten as soon as the voting was over, but the process was celebrated for the showmanship and sense of theater…

He was famous for slamming his forehead into the podium when his speech had reached its climax, underscoring the sacrifice he was prepared to make on behalf of his constituency—the head banging routine was now as popular and expected as the flip off the top rope in Mexican wrestling matches; the Lucha Libre, where masked wrestlers-cum-gymnasts performed amazing feats of physical dexterity as they pretended to fight each other.  Nobody believed that was real, either, and yet it was hugely popular.”

In two paragraphs, Blake was able to get to the heart of what American politics is all about. There are a few takeaways that I got from the paragraph above:

1)      Very few people (if any) actually believe anything that politicians say.  Campaigns exist to put on a good show and make empty promises.  History tells us that this is the way it always has been and probably always will be.

2)      Really there is not much difference between World Wrestling Entertainment and American campaign politics.

3)      Since the WWE is a multimillion dollar entertainment industry, are there any ideas that the federal government can take from this industry? (This will be discussed in more detail in Part 2 tomorrow.)

4)      And now for the Main Event…Romney vs. Obama.  (This will be discussed more in Part 3 on Friday).

Today, let’s discuss the first takeaway.  Everyone knows that the WWE is not real.  If you didn’t know this fact, you are probably a kid and still believe in Santa Claus.  To help me get the point of the WWE, I spoke to a good friend of mine, Gabe Fig.  Gabe is a twenty-five-year fan of the WWE and he has seen it grow into what it is today.  I asked him for his thoughts on the fake-ness of the show:

PS: What makes the WWE so entertaining?

GF: What makes it so entertaining is the combination of athletic ability, showmanship, and story-telling. It’s basically a testosterone fueled soap opera and that’s okay with me.

PS: Does it bother you that it is not real?

GF:  No. Sure the stories and match outcomes are scripted, but it still takes incredible talent to work a match, build anticipation for a feud or match, etc. In match, it is often a beautifully orchestrated display of showmanship.

Most people, like Gabe, accept that the WWE is not a real sport and is nothing more than an athletic testosterone-induced soap opera.  It is about showmanship and storytelling. It is scripted but it takes talent to pull off a good show.  Does any of this sound familiar?  Washington politics is all about partisanship.  No one believes anything that is said from a politician but we stay tuned because it a good show.  For some reason, though, this bothers us.  So what is the point? Tune in tomorrow for the next part as we dive into this thought a little deeper.