On May 12, 2014, the Wall
Street Journal carried an op-ed piece that was truly opposed to what the newspaper
claims to stand for. (Contrary to
popular opinion, “op-ed” doesn’t mean “opinion-editorial,” but “opposite the
editorial page.” An op-ed piece
presumably reflects the personal opinion of the writer, not necessarily the
official stance of the newspaper. Look
it up.)
The piece was titled, “Inspired Amateurs Should Avoid
Politics,” and it was by Philip Terzian, editor of The Weekly Standard. It was on page A15 . . . opposite the
editorial page, as we might expect.
 |
| Winning is all that matters. |
At the end of his analysis showing how “inspired amateurs”
can’t get elected in America because professional politicians are so much
better at getting into and staying in power, Terzian declared, “the purpose of
politics is to win elections.”
Keep in mind that this was published in the Wall Street Journal, which has been
moaning and groaning that President Obama’s only
skill is winning elections, and that he lacks the ability and the vision
essential to running what is still the most powerful country on earth. For now.
 |
| Tweed & Tammany: a winning ticket. |
If what Terzian says is correct, then
what you get are legions of “politicians” whose only skill is winning
elections. Obama is president because he
is the best qualified . . . for winning elections . . . and the Wall Street Journal has been shooting
its mouth off for years for nothing.
On the other hand, if the purpose of politics is (as the
word suggests) to protect and maintain the network of institutional structures
of the political unit, the pólis,
within which citizens realize their human potential by exercising their
inherent rights, then the gifted or inspired amateur with proven leadership and
administrative abilities that match a comprehensive — and comprehensible —
vision that goes beyond just getting elected is far and away the better choice.
Maybe it’s time to get rid of the professionals and give the
“inspired amateurs” a chance.
#30#
