On the Outside, Moving In

Last week, Clint Didier, former NFL player and current candidate for senate from the state of Washington, caught the eye of a notable political pundit. Keeping his supporters up to date, Didier posted on Twitter, “Just arrived in D.C. I’m in to win!” to which Politico’s Kenneth Vogel commented dismissingly, “Another Tea Party outsider comes to D.C. to kiss insider rings.” I have no idea who Didier was meeting with, and it doesn’t really matter. Vogel’s judgment is understandable, and I will even concede its accuracy, at least based on the appearance of such a rendezvous.

But what should grassroots activists be saying in reaction to Didier’s meeting with the old guard in order to kiss the proper rings, especially when he boasts substantial Tea Party support and a crucial endorsement from Sarah “The Kingmaker” Palin? How should a movement dedicated to replacing jaded fat cats with fresh outsiders react when one of their own schmoozes with the targets, the very Washington elites who have been marked for ejection come November?

The answer: cautious assent. Let the leash out a little bit.

As much as the recently revitalized grassroots would love to see a “pure” campaign, the simple fact of the matter is that American politics is won and lost by whose coattails you are riding, whose hand you’re shaking in that photograph, and whose barbecue you went to last weekend. We all know the cynics who constantly decry the system. “It’s not what you know; it’s who you know,” they say, with a wave of the hand, a roll of the eyes, and a sigh of defeat. “The issues don’t matter. It’s all identity politics. America elects politicians based on who they would rather get a beer with.” The list of complaints goes on and on, and I’m nodding my head with each one, the same as you. Politics is disgusting; it has evolved into an impenetrable system of give-and-take, an arena for men to trade other people’s things for their own gain, a veritable “old boys club” in which your liberty and mine is the currency of deals that should never be made.

But the real question is, when has politics not been exactly that? More than 300 years before Christ, Aristotle penned a treatise called The Politics, in which he wrote that “man is, by nature, a political animal.” A cynical interpreter (which I happen to be) would apply this passage to say that man is, by nature, destined to manipulate political systems to maximize his own power and secure the most possible property and comfort for himself at the expense of someone else. This is, and always has been, the nature of politics.

At its founding, the American political system was unprecedented in its allowance of liberty, its protection of the people from the potential tyranny of their own government, and its basis on a solid moral foundation. Unfortunately, it was built by humans who were imperfect, reprobate, and prone to greed. I think we can all agree that our political history, especially recently, has clearly exemplified the effects of such pervasive fallibility.

So am I saying there is no hope for American politics? Are we doomed to a never-ending cycle of back-door deals, favors for endorsements, coattail riding, and old boy schmoozing? Not necessarily. I am of the opinion, as are many pragmatic Americans including Clint Didier, that the American political system has been tainted beyond recognition, and it will operate at an ethically reprehensible level until humans become perfect (which is to say, until pigs fly).

However, Didier’s move to meet and greet with Washington insiders should be tolerated and appreciated by grassroots supporters, not shunned. Didier, a novice politician, is a pragmatist. He has chosen, as wise competitors do, to operate within the established political game to the best of his ability in order to win. The “rules” of Washington were established long ago, and though we hate the rules, those who follow them get elected.

Our hope is found in politicians of good character – outsiders, real people, Mr. Smiths, if you will. These men, of whom Didier has been judged to be one, do not soil their potential for bringing about true reform simply by associating with the old guard. Too many Americans are apt to throw the baby out with the bath water. Many would read Ken Vogel’s “ring kissing” comment and their blood would boil, as if political corruption was contagious and Didier just recklessly exposed himself to it.

Thankfully, it is not contagious, at least not after a few meetings. Didier, along with other grassroots politicians like him, can and should seek endorsements from insiders because pragmatic politics wins elections. I recently received a comment on a blog post telling me that voting for third parties and independent candidates was the “American way.” This is a nice thought, and it may be so in the true spirit of the non-partisan founders. However, history shows us that two-party, back room, favor trading, dirty politics is the true American way, and has been since the day after George Washington left office. The key is working the system to our advantage, using connections, endorsements, and favors (all ethically) to bring candidates of character and integrity to power: candidates who will bring some degree of relative decency back to a capital that so desperately needs it.

This is exactly why American Majority trains activists and candidates based on the way the political system currently works. We realize that to make a difference in government, candidates must get elected, primarily to state and local office. In order to be elected, candidates must exercise some degree of pragmatic judgment and check their uncompromising anti-establishment animosity at the door. Andrew Kerr wrote about exactly this a few weeks ago. Activists should be outsiders who work inside the system, strangers in a strange arena seeking to change it from within. Importantly, in order to get into the arena, outsiders need to work the current system. Laurie Masterson put it best in the words of her father when she wrote that you, the candidate, should “play their game by your rules.” The game has already begun, and it is up to us to change the rules. But we have no chance of doing so if we don’t go into the belly of the beast with a pragmatic mindset, bent on winning at all ethical costs in order to see true reform.