Insider and outsider candidates

                The inherent paradox of American politics is the need to be a Washington outsider on the campaign trail, and yet act like a Washington insider once elected (what Samuel Popkin memorably called "an experienced virgin”). The public tend to associate Washington DC with a cynical, self-serving political elite utterly removed from the concerns that face people trying to make a living on Main Street. As a result, any connotation with the Beltway mentality can be toxic on the campaign trail. For instance, during the race for the Republican nomination in 2012 those tainted by association with Washingtonian politics all lost out to Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich was a former Speaker of the House, Rick Santorum served as a Senator and Ron Paul resigned from his seat in the House. In most cases, former governors tend to win the presidential election. Americans have more respect for those who have implemented decisions as a governor in contrast to those who work in the "broken branch" of Congress. The former requires people to make tough calls whereas the latter are tainted with pork-barrel politics, back-room deals and partisan point-scoring. Since 1976, every President bar Bush senior and Obama has at one time been a state governor. This is a striking statistic for those seeking to understand American politics. However, in 2008 both main candidates had previous experience of Washington in their role as Senators. This was very much against the recent trend.

               

The inherent problem within the insider-outsider notion is that once a candidate has won the election, their lack of Washington experience can be a major flaw. This is made worse by a tendency to bring in those whom they have worked with in the past. Governing one of the states, even a large state such as California; is no adequate preparation for the challenges presented in the Oval Office. Some Presidents suffer a great deal more in this area than others (most notably Jimmy Carter). Frankly, one needs some experience of Washingtonian politics – or at the very least a team around you with an insight into how things are done in DC. Without the ability to pull the right strings, the task of governing this nation can be very difficult indeed. This may entail some familial connections (as in the case of George W. Bush). Unless a newly-elected President can stamp his authority upon the Oval Office and the associated bureaucracy, he will inevitably struggle to govern in an effective manner.

                The disjuncture between running as an outsider alongside the need to act like an insider to exert influence is hardly unique to American politics. In several democracies, the candidate who presents themselves as ‘normal’ and therefore different to the political class can often be very appealing. The most common examples range from populist parties (such as Golden Dawn in Greece, the Five Star Movement in Italy and the UK Independence Party) and those candidates with a certain charm and charisma. However, this in no way mitigates the need for the winning candidate to act like an insider once faced with the realities of political life. It would be very difficult to establish an effective governing strategy without mastering the decision-making machine.

                Thus far, the 2016 campaign has done little to suggest that Washington insiders will become popular with the American people anytime soon. As such, a future President may well have to present a persona that sits outside the conventional expectations of a Beltway politician. On the Republican side, the front-runner remains Donald Trump - the very epitome of a Washington outsider. As for the Democrats, the outsider tag is thus far held by Bernie Sanders (although he is of course a member on Capitol Hill).

                The need for a candidate to present themselves as a Washington outsider may also be applied to the choice of vice-presidential candidate. Indeed, it can make for good politics to place an insider and an outsider on the same ticket. For instance, the GOP did this in both 2008 and 2012. However, as with the broader issue of a balanced ticket; this is not always necessary as the Democrats demonstrated with Obama (former Senator for Illinois) and Biden (former Senator for Delaware). On reflection, the need for a balanced ticket probably outweighs the need for an insider-outsider offer to the electorate. Indeed, it was the Democrats that won both those elections whereas the Republicans were convincingly beaten.