Why Americans Hire Bad Elected Officials

Let’s face it, we’re a poor judge of talent.

I have read countless articles that outline ways to redesign the way we hire professionals for our businesses, how we recruit our teachers and how we retain our best and brightest military minds. But very little has been said about the hiring of our elected officials.

I know we don’t actually “hire” politicians, we elect them. And quite a bit of intellectual effort has been spent on thinking about election reform. Many believe that a drastic redesign in the way political campaigns are funded to be the only remedy to cure our ineffective congressional woes. While making the barrier to entry less of a financial burden and making elected officials less tied to the money they need to continue representing people is a worthwhile goal, that’s not why you find yourself here. You are here because we all want to rethinking how we hire our candidates.

I believe that currently, the American electorate does not identify the right skill set needed for an elected official to successfully represent their interests and improve the long term health of our country.

The Angry Voter Death Spiral

After witnessing and partaking in countless conversations as a congressional staffer, I’ve noticed the rise of the political outsider is often sited as the result of a building discontent among voters: a dissatisfaction among the “disaffected”. The refrain is often that a voters voice isn’t being heard or that an elected official becomes a Washington insider and no longer serves the interests of the constituent. However, the disaffected voter should take some time to self-reflect and realize that part of the culprit here is that they are a poor judge of talent. Voters are angry with voter choices. This is due to a fundamental error in the choice of character traits of the people the angry voter sends to Washington. It’s not that the candidates aren’t what they say they are, it’s that when they arrive in Washington, the elected official quickly realizes that the type of work isn’t for them or that the political promise of the outsider was wildly unrealistic. However, they stay in Washington, lured by the lifestyle and platform to talk and never act — they know they are ineffective.

At this point, the voter sees betrayal. The failure is two fold, by the voter and the elected official. But just like talent management, if you hire the wrong people, you can only blame yourself.

Voters have a responsibility and the power to understand and identify the correct qualities that define a successful elected official. They also must be able to identify and accept that part of those qualities should include the ability to compromise and demand a mastery of the steps required to enact a law or implement a policy. The processes required to enact laws and change the course of the country rely heavily on deal making and personal relationships (notice I’m not saying enforce or implement the laws, that’s the President’s job and requires a particular skill set, different that what’s needed to be an effective lawmaker). The emphasis voters place on a strict adherence to ideology and refusal to compromise (or mostly spun as a principled stand on the issues) is much less important in a representative democracy than an understanding of how your elected official will bring your priorities to fruition. It’s nice to have principles, but why do they matter if you don’t put them to good use?

Just like the adage, you could have a great team on paper, but too bad the game isn’t played on paper.

Hiring Smarter

That basic tenets of how laws are made is taught in our high schools and colleges, but not taken seriously by those learning. Many times its seen as boring and not important, while celebrities and influencers reinforce this notion by emphasizing certain pet issues over the power to achieve goals. Sometimes even with a willful disregard if a particular proposal has any chance of making it into policy or law or could have unintended consequences. I don’t want to start sounding like a grandfather and bemoan the downfall of civic education, but what’s termed as “inside baseball” in Washington — the ability to do the job of a legislator and build the relationships needed to bring ideas to life- is the key to actually solving many of the issues facing our nation. We should start judging our candidates based on their ability to do this, and less on their ideological purity or strict adherence to the issues Kim Kardashian cares most about.

Unless we start hiring smarter we’re going to consistently send poorly equipped elected officials to Washington resulting in more congressional gridlock. And voters should have an understanding of what makes a good legislator by knowing the basic steps required to move an idea forward, rather than getting smart on how to defend a personal policy position. While it’s certainly an American tradition to have spirited and fun debates between friends on issue positions, leave the details of the issues up to the policy wonks when you go to the ballot box (or become one yourself if that’s what you want to do). Exercise the right to vote based on the candidate that best embodies a good statesman (or statesperson) first and adherence to a particular ideology as a secondary priority. Let’s hire better lawmakers so we can get better laws.