Blayne Sucks

I previously posted my thoughts on Lawrence Lessig’s possible run for an open seat in the House of Representatives. Since that time, he has decided not to run. For those who support him and his ideas, this is actually probably the better decision in the short run. In truth, Jackie Speier probably agrees with Lessig (and vice versa) on many issues. The 12th district in California would almost certainly be electing someone that held those views. Congressman Lantos serves as some proof of that. Thus, in net, the “standard” positions would not really change all that much if Lessig were to win a seat in Congress.

However, Lessig’s time and focus would change. People of all stripes seem to agree that the only way that Congress will change is through a grassroots movement. The question is how do you start such a movement? I think people like Lessig are the answer. He (obviously) has a huge voice, and I’m not sure that getting elected to Congress would appreciably improve that voice in terms of his ability to empower a grassroots movement. He would certainly have a bigger stage, but he would also have different core responsibilities. He would have to focus on the needs of the people in his district, instead of being able to focus completely on educating people about Congress, including why change is needed and how to cause that change.

I certainly would like to see some real change in the current political process at virtually all levels. In particular, I think new ideas and new approaches are needed. Lessig has certainly been open and receptive to many of those things in the past and I would love to see him eventually get elected. Time magazine’s cover story this week is about experience and its effect on politicians. Though the article makes some great points (such as the trend that second terms in Office are usually less effective than first terms), I actually thought the follow up article on the “science” of experience was better.

There is something that I have found to be true, which isn’t mentioned in either article: creativity and experience tend to oppose one another. Perhaps this is why Lessig has been so open and receptive to new ideas. Why isn’t experience viewed as a lack of creativity? Why are people asking if Obama is experienced enough to be an effective President rather than asking if Clinton is creative enough to be an effective President? Another part of this debate that seems muffled to me is the fact that our government has a system of built-in checks and balances that should limit mistakes due to inexperience.

George Will mentioned on This Week with George Stephanopolous that Lincoln was preceded by Buchanan and succeeded by Andrew Johnson, who are generally considered to be two of the worst Presidents in history. He also pointed out that Buchanan and Johnson were two of the most experienced politicians ever to become President while Lincoln was one of the least experienced politicians. Although Will didn’t mention this in his debate, Lincoln’s entire Presidency is defined by his successes in winning the Civil War, despite having zero background in warfare. He actually ended up checking out books on military strategy from the Library of Congress to figure out how to pull the whole thing off.

Anyhow, I said that I though his decision was good in the short run, but I think it does raise a long term problem: how do you espouse change in Congress effectively while also refusing to run for it? I’m not sure how he will be able to avoid answering this question as time moves progresses. I suppose we’ll see in time.