INSIDE THE BELTWAY
Myth of the Washington outsider

By Justin Droms
RAW STORY COLUMNIST

In recent presidential elections, candidates have rushed to identify themselves as "Washington outsiders," promising voters leadership that is free of Capitol Hill corruption and an approach that opposes business as usual in Washington.

Four years ago, Texas Gov. George W. Bush masterfully wooed voters as a Washington outsider and hee-hawed his way right into the Oval Office. But after the Washington virgin's tumultuous term at the helm, voters in the upcoming election might show that the outsider approach is irrelevant, and that the quintessential insider is the right man for the job. After all, that is exactly what Democratic primary voters already have asserted in effectively nominating Sen. John Kerry.

The most recent (and most unsuccessful) candidates to assume the Washington outsider label were Democratic presidential hopefuls Howard Dean, John Edwards and Wesley Clark. They used their outsider status to define largely their respective campaigns and heavily criticized opponent Kerry for his prolonged experience inside the beltway.

But voters didn't buy into the hype - they vetoed Dean's romp through Michigan, New Mexico, etc. (yeeehaaww!!). They proved that there is, in fact, only one America; and they showed that Madonna has the political pull of a frozen burrito. Essentially, voters overwhelmingly chose the consummate Washington insider over three respectable outsiders, highlighting the desire for a candidate who has the proven ability to get things done within the confines of Washington politics, not just make speeches about why it's screwed up.

Until recently, some utterly important questions have gone unasked: What's so bad about being an insider? In presidential politics, why can it be a mortal sin to have real experience in national politics? Why is inexperience an asset, and experience a liability?

For practically any other job in this country, just the opposite is true — experience is the asset. Simply stated, the person with proven experience is usually the best person for the job. Veterinarians, for example, don't become neurosurgeons because of a lack of exposure to neurosurgery. Shouldn't the same rule apply to our nation's highest position?

If voters in the November election follow the lead of voters in the Democratic primary, then the answer to that question will be yes, and the nation will be better for it.

Kerry is the definitive Washington insider, which should be viewed as a positive attribute, not something to be ashamed of. He is a tactful politician who deftly has navigated the shady inner circles of Capitol Hill for the past few decades (and a man who harbors an undeniable crush on JFK). But, what's so bad about that? Kerry has as much pertinent experience as anyone on Capitol Hill, and his experience as an insider is one of the best reasons to elect him.

Most importantly, that experience is just what America needs. We need a president with genuine tact and proven political skills, not a cowboy outsider who further will polarize American politics and make real action almost impossible.

Let's face it, even though the Washington outsider approach is great for coining campaign slogans and riling crowds, this year's election will prove that it is not the best approach to winning the White House (or running it well come January). It's time for the model insider to clean up the mess of the gung-ho outsider; it's time for a man with real Capitol Hill knowledge and time-tested Washington experience to take control of the presidency.