Representative, or Role Model? - Granite Grok

Representative, or Role Model?

As the discussion over Andy Sanborn’s Q Score heats up, I can’t help being reminded of Pete Rose, who — despite his singular accomplishments as a player — remains ineligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame.

To paraphrase former major league outfielder Jim Dwyer:  The Hall of Fame is for baseball players.  Heaven is for good guys.

If your goal is to win a game, or a series, or a title, who do you want on your team?  The handsome, well-spoken guy with nice manners?  Or the crass, hard-charging guy with the skills and the drive to get the job done? 

It’s an unfortunate fact of life that we often can’t find a single person who embodies the skills to do two different, but closely related, jobs. In sports, the skills needed to win games aren’t the same as the skills needed to land endorsements.  In business, the skills needed to launch a startup company aren’t the same as the skills needed to guide a mature company.  And so on.

In politics, we have a situation like that:  The skills needed to get elected to an office are often very different from the skills needed to perform that office effectively.

To get elected to a high-profile office (like Congress, or Governor), you need, primarily, to be perceived as a nice guy.  (A couple of years ago, when I was running for state representative, the people I knew who were best at winning their own elections gave me this advice:  Knock on doors, chat for a bit to let them know you’re a nice guy, smile a lot, repeat a few platitudes, nod your head at whatever they say, and move on without discussing any ideas.  At the time, I refused to believe that this could be the key to success.  I’ve since changed my mind.)

But to successfully execute those high-profile positions, ‘nice’ might actually be the opposite of what you need to be, especially if your job is standing firm against a barrage of attempts to get you to vote for things you shouldn’t be voting for.

Some countries have found a way to go between the horns of this dilemma, and we can learn from them.  In these countries, the state has a head, and the government has a head, and these jobs are held by different people, with different skill sets.  The job of head of state is ceremonial, while the job of head of government is political.  The basic idea is that the head of state should be ‘above politics’, leaving the head of government free to engage in politics as needed.

For example, the presidency of Israel is offered to someone who has demonstrated eminence in some field, and who is looked up to as a role model.  (It was once offered to Albert Einstein, who turned it down.)  The Prime Minister of Israel, on the other hand, has to deal with actually running the government, and dealing with leaders of other governments.

Similarly, Canada and Australia have Governors General, who do things like attend ceremonies, give speeches, meet with soldiers in hospitals, and so on, while their Prime Ministers are doing things like negotiating trade agreements.  The UK has the Royal Family, whose job is basically to avoid doing anything too embarrassing.  And so on.

I think these countries are onto something, and we could follow their lead in New Hampshire without even having to change the federal or state constitutions.  All we would have to do is add some new positions to the ballot, e.g.,

   Offices                Republican           Democratic 
                          Candidates           Candidates

   Representative (CD1)   Andy Sanborn         Chris Pappas

   Role Model (CD1)       Eddie Edwards        Maura Sullivan

So you would be able to vote to send Andy Sanborn to Congress to protect and advance the interests of the state, while also voting to give Eddie Edwards a platform for traveling around, making people feel good about New Hampshire and about themselves.  Each would get to play to his strengths, without being unduly crippled by his weaknesses.

What it comes down to is this:  I’d rather send someone to Washington or Concord who isn’t likable at all, but who always votes the right way, than send someone who is charming and never makes a social faux pas, but sometimes votes the wrong way.  And I suspect that there are a lot of other people out there who feel the same.  Separating ‘representative’ from ‘role model’ in the electoral process is a way for us to have our cake, and eat it too.

The alternative, of course, is to increasingly see high-profile offices filled by people whose main skill is getting other people to like them.  How’s that working out for us so far?

>