Czars and outsiders separately might be okay, but how about we put those ideas together? Why flirt with the electing unqualified autocrats to run our government when we can go whole hog? Let's import some *genuine* autocrats and start a dynasty for each department. Preferably they won't know the language, the history, the people or have any familiarity with democratic forms of government. Aren't there any Romanovs, Hapsburgs or Hohenzollerns still kicking around somewhere? Think of all the savings we could reap by not having elections! Barring that perhaps some out-of-work military dictators might be persuaded to take the job. Admittedly we might still have to have "elections", but sham elections are still quite a savings.

Great call--the outsider argument only breeds inexperience and completely ignores the skills that politicians need to negotiate or reach positive compromise. Please give me an insider who will fight for what I believe in. When you are dealing with complicated competing interests, often common sense is the wrong tool for the job.

A thoughtful analysis of the "insider" paradox. I agree that Watergate crystallized the anti-experience/down-with-government notion, although Watergate had it antecedents (Think of Gary Wills's book, A Necessary Evil--politico-bashing is the American way). Here's the challenge: We want candidates who are seasoned enough to operate the levers of government, but we don't want them to be captured by bureaucratic, careerist thinking. Government experience and innovative leadership aren't mutually exclusive. Skeptical voters assume otherwise, alas.

Pete J.

Thanks Tim,
I loved this article. Now all you do is google me www.stanforcity.org, or call me at 206-372-7594. You presume I'm unqualified why? Because the Muni League and the Blethen family say so? Because I don't believe in money in politics? I would believe in such if the Monopoly banker in New York weren't printing money and issuing debt in our name for it to lend to Ryan Blethen to keep him from going bankrupt in Maine, of course to make people think I don't exist. Today, aside from working on my research projects at work, I wrote to a few legislators, asking them if they will protect me when the Army comes to my house to inject me with "swine flu vaccine". I've asked them to seek an Advisory Opinion from Rob McKenna, granting me a legal defense of self-defense under such a scenario. As an experienced physicist, lawyer, entrepreneur, and politician, do you mean to say I lack necessary experience as a prior elected official? Is it possible in your mind that I have been demonized in the press because I don't believe in abortion rights, or affirmative action. As we saw in the Senate hearings, the Republicans were too cowardly to raise the issue of Sotomayer's book "Dangerous Obsession". At least with real people like me out here, they woke up in time to save their own reputations. Americans by two to one or three to one have had it with the affirmative action racial spoils system, and Obama is already finished having failed at Michelle's Hail Mary injection of race-baiting into this summer's civil discourse. All to my advantage, so don't count me out yet. Of course, to be a Professor means you can never seem to side with me, or else face the fate of Ward Churchill. On the other hand, you're still young, might as well risk it all for the Commonwealth of King County.

How many people that drive the car into the ditch also are their own tow truck driver?

Really, keep doing the same things, in fact PROMOTE them to even greater power so they can "fix" what was broken while they happen to be there (but not their fault, oh no). No, please don't change a thing, thanks.

This election is about change, and about which candidate has the experience, skills and maturity to both initiate and manage change. King County's problems are real. (You can't blame Sims alone for the County's situation. As the writer correctly pointed out, the council shares responsibility for reckless spending and exceptionally generous employee benefits.) Two candidates are classic insiders. They should have the best perspective on the problems and the most specific ideas about how to address them. But since they approved the unsustainable spending of the last few years and are beholden to organized labor, they can't acknowledge those as problems.

Change is never easy. Addressing those problems will be very hard. Many constituencies will be unhappy and will resist change. My experience would suggest that it is much, much harder for an insider to be an advocate for major change because it necessarily involves acknowledging past mistakes and realigning priorities and expectations. Ultimately, it is about credibility.

Outsiders - hopefully experienced in the ways of local government - are better change agents.

Does the author mean that candidates who claim to be outsiders don’t understand the give and take of politics? Or won’t know how to articulate a position? Maybe they can’t find the toner for the copy machine? Do you mean they’re like the 5 year olds at baseball camp…won’t know which end of the bat to hold?

“Outsider” to me says, “I’m not in the tank for anyone…or at least, not yet.” It means someone who doesn’t have that aroma of “special interest” cheese that wafts from virtually all of our incumbents.

Given what we have now I am definitely willing to vote for “outsiders” under the banner of How Hard Can It Be? Even if it just upsets some devious give and take deals currently in the works (see When Chopp speaks, parse it closely by David Brewster, Crosscut, March 26, 2009).

Sometimes it’s the connections that you don’t have that make you a valuable candidate to your constituents.

Rather than elections, we should have public opinion polls and lotteries. Opinion polls to list the top ten priorities the public wants addressed over the next legislative session; lotteries to determine the people who will be attending that session. Like jury duty: "sorry, you're number came up, you're King County executive for the next year".

Until Norm Rice became Mayor, it had been a very long time since a City Council member had become a Mayor.
Now, it seems that the spin on candidate knowledge and experience is tied to having held a previous political position. This is wrong!

We need to nurture future leaders in our greater community and have them experience a vertical learning curve once elected. We need visionaries who present us with new and provocative ways to do things. Process will be the test as to viability.

Total knowledge in the world is doubling in ever shortening periods of time. We need new blood and a willingness to try things without fearing the unknown. That is where enginuity and creativity comes from. A willingness to challenges the known and stretch into the unknown.

If it were possible to be a candidate for Mayor, for one who resides outside the city boundaries, and have excellent leadership capabilities, I'd support letting them run with the condition that upon election they have to reside in the city during their term in office. Seattle has become too inbred and needs to be aired out! And, someone from outside of the city has NO conflicts of interest as would a city resident.

My two cents.

Art

In response to Dr. Lippmann:
You have truly impressive academic credentials. However, you did not attend the forum, so I could not judge your fitness for office. Beyond that, you seem to have missed the fact that only Congress has the constitutional authority to coin money, so the idea of King County somehow buying a silver mine and using that to pay its debts seems to me an unlikely solution to any of the county government's problems.
And by the way, my name is not Tim.
TMS

T.M.,
I didn't say I was going to coin money, I plan to use junk silver. During the Transition, establishments can post prices in Fed money and silver coin. For example, at Starbucks you could pay $1.60 in Fed money or a 1964 silver dime, just like it used to cost in 1964. Speaking of economics, Mr. Professor, I expect a critique of my economic philosophy, easily found on the Internets. BTW I wasn't invited to any of the forums that have happened yet except the CAIR Muslim forum, where I brought them to their feet by promising to help go after Dick Cheney.

The problem with King County Executive is not if they are insiders or outsiders in politics.
I agree, nothing wrong w/ insiders that know how to get things done with a record of being a change agent or speaking up and taking issue w/ wrong minded policies. (not being too popular with everyone is a plus)

Unfortunately, the King County Executive wannabes in Constantine and Phillips were "enablers" on the Council.

I agree w/ the previous post.
To effect major change, someone outside of the current council heirarchy needs to come in w/ new people.

The King County Council needs major change.
It's got to be Hunter, Jarrett or Hutchinson.