So with that being said, it's safe to say that I don't like Ron Johnson, or what he stands for (a conservative businessman who would serve companies, not people, in the senate). But I have to hand it to Johnson and his team, his latest political ad is simply spectacular.
Here is a link to the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06NXxd_qrtQ
The premise is simple and effectively conveyed through the use of a white board. It also speaks directly to not only conservatives who will vote for him, but independents as well. This ad appeals to independents through their concerns about the economy, and also plays on what at times is a sort of populist distrust directed at academics and lawyers, which tends to not extend to businessmen due to the supreme belief in capitalism and its morality in this country (businessmen who are rich worked hard for what they have and are entitled to it, unlike lawyers and academics).
The commercial mentions 57 lawyers in congress, with 1 accountant. The first thing that sprang to my mind was "who are the other 42 senators?" So I decided to take a look. Here's the breakdown, by degree, via a pie chart:
As you can see, there are indeed 57 lawyers in the senate. Bachelor of Arts, MBA and Bachelor of Science and are the other three most plentiful degrees. Notably absent is the number of science degrees. Of the BS degrees, only one consisted of a natural science (biology).
But aside from a degree, what exactly did the senators with these degrees do before they became senators? Just because someone gets a degree in law doesn't guarentee they will practice law. Below is a chart showing senators by "previous experience", in other words, what was the main occupation or field they engaged in before becoming a senator. I've had to use some judgement here in making this chart, as some senators had very varied backgrounds.
The chart mirrors the situation found in the degrees, with some notable variation. In particular, there are 10 less senators with what one might consider "law experience" (e.g. an attorney at a private law firm, a district attorney, etc.) than there are those with a law degree (47 versus 57 with a JD). Likewise, while only 8 senators hold an MBA, 15 can be considered to have experience in business (e.g. an insurance executive, corporate executive, etc.).
Those with "political" as their experience are those that spent most if not all of their time after college in some sort of political capacity. Examples include being a mayor or serving on a state senate.
And again, there is a notable absence in scientists. In fact, there are no scientists, and only 1 engineer, Ted Kaufman, who when going on for further schooling did not pursue an advanced engineering degree but instead went on to earn an MBA. The 2 medical doctors present and the 1 veternarian are the next closest thing to a scientist in the senate.
And yes, it's Al Franken who is the senator with "comedy" as his previous experience.
So who are the other 42 senators? Well, they are mostly businessmen and holders of degrees in areas of the humanities. Beyond that, the rest of the senators are fairly diverse, both in previous occupation and degree.
One thing is for certain, it's a bit misleading for Ron Johnson, a businessman through and through, to talk about him being an outsider in the senate. There might not be an abundance of accountants or manufacturers (which he describes himself as both), but there are plenty of people whose primary experience is in business, as well as their primary education.
So is change needed? Do we need fewer lawyers in the senate? Maybe. Perhaps having a few more scientists, might, for example, help create more funding for science related areas. The subject of who should make up a government is a weighty one however, and I don't think I can do it justice in the closing of a blog post (perhaps in a future one.. but I still need to write about China and it's parallels to Imperial Germany, so maybe in the far future).
That being said, I know that we don't need more businessmen in congress, at least those like Ron Johnson. We don't need people whose interests are not the electorate but in corporations, or who would rather cut taxes for the super rich than the middle class (which hurts the middle class, the bedrock of any advanced, modern consumer economy).
I really like this blog post. I agree with what you say about Johnson, however I do not think his ad is very great. I can see where you are coming from, but to me, the ad just seems like the same old thing you would expect from republican candidates.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, how will a manufacturer solve the economic crisis. Businessmen look out only for their own interests, and Johnson would not know the best course of action for a number of other industries in Wisconsin, in helping them climb out of the recession. The causes and beginnings of the economic downturn are wide-ranging, and the solutions are not necessarily wholly economic. What I think is needed most, is a way to bring America back to number one status across the globe, and that means encouraging innovation and development, which means better education. The US also needs to attract more businesses and companies to set up base in the country, and stop others from leaving. An accountant cannot do this, what is required are good solid laws which encourage the expansion of industries and promote new sources of income.
Manufacturing, may well be a declining industry, and does not necessarily equate to a future for the US.
I think it's important to stress that there is nothing wrong with having 57 senators with law degrees. Sure, diversity is great, but at the end of the day, the task of the senate is to write, debate, and pass laws. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would rather have people doing that who have a knowledge of the law system, know what good bills look like, and know how to pass a great law (one that won't get struck down by the supreme court).
I think the same is true of being a politician. Ron, quit kidding yourself, you are running for the US Senate, you are a politician. Saying you're not a politician, is just being a dishonest politician. And to me, there is nothing wrong with being a politician. Again, I would rather have someone with experience of Washington, experience of the Senate, someone who had done good things in the past and will continue to do so in the future; someone who knows how to handle lobbyists, and how to pass bills. Better that, than someone who has no idea what he doing, and relies on staff members, who have their own interests at heart.
Would you like to go have brain surgery with a doctor who has never done brain surgery before, and who is just doing this for a change? I may be preaching to the choir here, but I just wanted to share that with you.
Ben
Most republican attack ads (and democrat attack ads for that matter) are often heavy on excessive use of dramatic imagery and/or music to get their points across. This ad did away with all of that, and presented its argument in a clean, non antagonistic fashion. The message is clear and the numbers are also indisputable: there are 57 lawyers in congress, whether you think it's a good thing or not. I could easily imagine conservatives I know back home loving this ad and its message.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say about investment in education as well as innovation. America's lack of focus on education and instead attention on things like useless wars like Iraq (which has cost the U.S. over $1 trillion) is tantamount to a crime. Imagine if that money was funnelled into education, or researching new technology. At the end of the day, it's as much a cultural problem as it is a fiscal problem. Regardless of the lip service paid to it, most Americans just don't care about education as much as some of America's counterparts in the developed world do (specifically East Asian countries like Taiwan and Singapore).
Manufacturing is a relic of the past and needs to be discarded, save for a some key elements (such as military production) which should be kept native. Arguments in favor of manufacturing are as antiquated and flawed as arguments for agricultural primacy would have been in 19th century Britain.
I agree that having 57 lawyers is not a bad thing at all. In fact, the current mix in the senate is a pretty good one in my opinion. There are, in my mind, two streams of thought when it comes to the "who should make up the government" argument. The first is the most direct: Legislators make the law, therefore legislators should have training in law. This I agree with completely. The second stream of thought is a more philosophical one about the greater role politicians, in particular congressmen, play in crafting not just laws but national policy, which might require more than training in law to do well at. This is what I alluded to in my post about being a weighty topic.
With that being said, lawyers as politicians has been a model that has worked quite well for the U.S. as opposed to possible alternatives, such as what was seen in the USSR. In the 1980s, nearly 90% of the politburo consisted of politicians who were engineers by training and experience. It represented a trend which had started in many ways when the Bolshevicks took power, and took off in full steam from the 50s onward. Brezhnev for instance was a metallurgical engineer. Needless to say, we saw how that little experiement turned out...