Saturday, January 17, 2015

Scott Walker wrongly criticizes Hillary Clinton for her proximity to Washington

Walker tries using "divide and conquer" strategy in labeling Clinton as a career politician

Gov. Scott Walker doesn’t like that Hillary Clinton has spent a considerable part of her life in Washington.
“She lives in Washington. She works in Washington. She came to Washington through this president and his administration,” Walker said of Clinton, Politico’s Alex Insenstadt reported. “She was in Washington when she was a United States senator. She was in Washington when her husband was president of the United States. You look at everything that people dislike about Washington, and she embodies it.”
In his soliloquy about Washington (perhaps breaking the record for how many times the capital city could be mentioned in a single breath), Walker is going back to a tried-and-true strategy of his: divide and conquer.

Walker is trying to paint himself as the outsider, as someone who deserves to be a presidential contender due to his geographical distance from DC. Meanwhile, he portrays Clinton as an insider, as someone who has been part of the culture and influence of Washington for far too long.

Why does it matter? Walker wants Clinton to appear as a lifelong politician. And as DC politicians aren’t entirely popular these days, pinning the title of “Washington Insider” on Hillary can only help Walker with his potential presidential run.

Yet it’s Scott Walker who is more deserving of the moniker -- as the liberal One Wisconsin points out, Walker is more of a career politician than Hillary Clinton is:

More importantly, the discussion that Walker is trying to bring up about Clinton ignores important aspects about her character and policy positions. So she’s lived in Washington. Big deal. Who gives a hoot if she lived there for a considerable part of her life? What difference does it make on the issues?

I personally don’t care if a politician has been in office for 30 years or 3 months -- if they’ve got good ideas, they’re worth electing. I wrote in 2010 that a career politician is a good sign -- it’s indicative that the people want to continue electing that person as their representative. The founders of our nation were against term limits for that very reason. If a politician was good at their job, and continued being elected by the people, then why put a stop to that?

Don’t believe me? Read what founding father Benjamin Rush said about career politicians:
Government is a science, and can never be perfect in America, until we encourage men to devote not only three years, but their whole lives to it.
Gov. Scott Walker is dismissive of career politicians in Washington because it suits him to be. He can use the angst that the general public has against such leaders to his advantage, and it’s clear that he plans to do just that in his potential run for president.

But we should reject that notion. We should look past the idea of despising career politicians simply because they’ve dedicated their lives government service. Instead, we should put focus on the policies and characters of the candidates. Our government will work much better if we put our interests on those qualities.

No comments:

Post a Comment