Is politics surgery? Isn't the only permanent title in our system citizen? Operating rooms and cockpits are for highly trained professionals. We were not intended to have professional political class.
5
Hollywood has trained us to suspend disbelief when we are watching actors and actresses, and the money and award shows have made them believe they are a particularly valuable, talented, and important group of people. In reality, what they have is easy access to the media, and the problem is that the media does better selling stories about celebrities than it does about qualified but otherwise less interesting candidates. So it's a combination of willful ignorance and a press that chooses profit over social responsibility. Where are the articles about the Democratic candidates who believe we should ban assault weapons, socialize medicine, protect the environment, promote business, end the visa lottery... Wait, what? There aren't any? So we're choosing between inexperience, a corrupt incumbent, or a status-quo candidate from the Party Of Can You Believe How Bad Trump Is?
The biggest problem is that the Democratic Party learned nothing from the 2016 election. A qualified candidate that actually promised to deliver what the voters want would have no trouble against a young, inexperienced, TV personality.
3
Opra Winfrey is not qualified to be president. Democrats need to do better, and those of us who haven’t bothered to vote and/or don’t educate themselves are failing their country.
9
Perception is everything to the American populous. Rightly or wrongly, experienced politicians are perceived as inherently corrupt. Effective governance can be pretty dry and boring stuff compared to the cult of celebrity TV but celebrities know how to effectively use the media while older politicians do not or have felt it was unnecessary. Hence why we know more about Gynewth Paltrow's grooming habits than we do about what actually was legislated at the federal and local level.
2
It is seem obvious that experience is vital. So why is there the current infatuation for inexperienced candidates? My guess is that politicians (hardly ever held in high regard over the ages) are presently viewed as something nasty that you trod in.
The performance (or non-performance) of Congress and the White House perhaps leads to the popular conclusion that experience in politics has led us to where we are now.
As a lifelong democrat, I am happy that someone with an understanding of the integrity needed to run a state government is taking on a man who has failed so miserably in making New York state better and has warred with the Mayor denying the City the funds it badly needs.
If the New York Republicans weren't as ethically challenged as Cuomo, he would be an easy mark for them. People can vote for Nixon in the primary and express their disgust with a guy who disbanded his Ethics in Government Panel when It got to close to uncovering the source of the odiferous smells emanating from his office. One of them was his good friend Percoco.
5
Thank you Frank Bruni for voicing my thoughts and concerns on the issue of completely unqualified celebrity narcissists running for high office!
6
There is plenty of celebrity advice to raise doubt about: among the endorsements of the political giants Scott Baio and Jon Voigt for Trump, Charlton Heston's cold, dead hand NRA speech, Tom Selleck's reassuring reverse mortgage take, and Kendall Jenner Pepsi fiasco, we're served a ubiquitous hawking of cars, credit cards and beer, etc. Making a prime example of Paltrow's vagina steaming advice seems gratuitous and oddly questionable, at best.
1
I never understood America's fascination with people who are told where to stand and what to say -- and who earn an inordinate amount of money for doing those two very basic things. They should be exceedingly grateful that they get to do that without having to have lived the lives of those who they just played a part. That people then fawn all over them seems to propel them to believe that they are somehow special in the world. When in reality, they have had the easiest of lives with very little experience in anything.
4
After one entertainer's performance as president, many Americans will be loath to follow another one. Reagan was a "B" actor, but he had quite a history in politics beginning with being president of SAG, then governor of California. He was a better politician than he was an actor. Trump has never been anything other than a charlatan and that certainly shows. I am sure Oprah is a better person than Trump, but let her be mayor of Chicago or governor of Illinois before she runs for president.
5
In Reagan's history is the chapter of his refusal to acknowledge the aids virus which at the time was rapidly spreading in America and became a global epidemic. Reagan and his wife Nancy refused to utter a word even while they lost friends to the virus. Reagan like Trump was more concerned about losing his core base of conservative christians, especially the likes of Holmes Tutttle, the wealthy car dealership owner who financed Reagan's life all the way into the White House. Oprah? Another charade all together different. Cynthia Nixon lives an honest life and that is where the history of our politicians needs to begin.
2
"In medicine, in social sciences, in economics and in so much else, rigorous training and painstakingly earned knowledge matter. They’re not badges of elitism. They’re proof of seriousness." Thank you Mr. Bruni, please say this over and over and over again!
14
A long tradition in America: contesting establishment opinion: like the Crown forbidding settlers West of the Appalachians to reduce fighting with Native Americans.
Remember the Vietnam War, urged and justified by the Best and Brightest, McNamara, Bundy, Rostow, et al.? They were very rational men who let the emotional symbolism of the Cold War and the game of dominoes override other experts views that it was Vietnamese nationalism and the losing bet on Catholics in a Buddhist country which would determine the outcome, mirroring our own struggle for independence, if our dominant experts could ever disentangle themselves from the Cold War polarities of "freedom vs communism."
In China and Vietnam it looks like a new version of capitalism, authoritarian "Keynesianism" (forgive me JMK), the state picking winners, defying all the old American categories, has emerged, and all the Best and Brightest are making a grand miscalculation: that Russia (no recommendation from me for them as admirable) is a greater threat than China...which our own free-trade free market fundamentalism helped along the path - its surge to the top.
Every facet of American life today is contested along the lines of class, race, gender, and geography. I give no magic blessing to dissent or populism, right or left. We all have to earn our way in the struggle for ideas and bases for our opinions.
And I haven't even mentioned global warming vs our dominant economics...Next Time.
1
I agree with you Frank. I like Cynthia Nixon and wondered why she didn’t run for state legislator or U.S. Congress instead of Governor. A big complicated job in a big complicated Stae with many forces and players to know and manage. And the stakes for citizens from a person with no experience in the job is very consequential. Didn’t we learn that the genuine desire by people for something fresh and pure undermined support for a good, capable, experienced though not perfect person like Hillary and gave us the disaster of Trump with all of it’s consequences for our country, it’s citizens and the planet?Be careful.
6
Cynthia Nixon may have learned a bit over the years about some New York City issues, but I don't get the feeling that she knows anything at all about upstate New York. What are her stands on lowering property taxes or developing the economy in rural areas? I've read her website, those aren't even mentioned. If she were running for City Council or NY State Legislature, I'd support her, gladly. Those are the appropriate entry-level political positions for someone focused on NY City concerns like the subway.
6
Unfortunately, it is also true that although President Obama was infinitely superior to Trump in both character and intelligence, he too was not ready to be President, although he might have been after two or three real terms in the Senate. His inexperience showed, and it is part of the reason we ended up with Trump. This is just one more way that the primary system is a total disaster.
8
Many of us smell a rat when we hear the word politician and when we see them on TV, which is as close as we get to actually seeing them.
It's all about spinning, tactics, inside baseball and posturing. With lies and omissions thrown in.
The few times I had a chance to see one -- even low level -- up close, I have been dismayed at the lack of candor and real knowledge.
Everything for them is part of a larger picture that has nothing do with issues, but with how issues position them in the discourse of power, committees, favors, back scratching and, most of all, the chance of being re-elected.
AND, I am not even talking about MONEY, the freight-car-full of money they have to raise to get elected.
So, although I am not attracted to celebrity candidates in the least, I believe that they can't be possibly worse than those we already have. They don't know, yes, but they don't owe either. And in times like these, it feels like a breath of fresh air.
5
"I believe that they can't be possibly worse than those we already have. " Trump said to black voters: "What do you get to lose ?".
well, we lose our country, our planet, our humanity, civility and our shirts !
2
It's alarming enough that people with no experience run for high office, but what's even more alarming is that experienced politicians don't know how to beat them.
It should have been instructive to the Democrats when Trump went through the entire "establishment" field of Republican candidates while barely breaking a sweat. The GOP primary campaign gave Clinton and her team all the tools they needed to beat him. Instead, they ran just about the worst campaign possible.
As for the American people who vote inexperienced buffoons into high office, we are now treating our presidential elections as though they are an episode of "The Voice"; whoever "sings" the loudest will win.
God help us.
5
Success in politics, pornography and preaching requires a similar skill set. Other than being a trial lawyer, acting experience and talent is among the best preparations for those professions.
1
I have nothing to contribute as far as Ms. Nixon's character. But this story really is about our country's need for thoughtful, well-educated, people with a craving for pubic service — in the service of the people — not or the donors, not or the most powerful, and not to enrich themselves to finance a life of luxury while feeding at the public trough.
So when will the lessons be learned? When will Americans — mostly conservatives — finally reject the mildly intellectual and rich from the enternainment industry? Hulk Hogan in Minnesota, Reagan in California and the White House, and, of course, Mr. Trump himself.
Frankly, the only business mogul who left public service with a track record of good work was Michael Bloomberg. We will have to see how well "Floriduuuhhhh's" Governor Rick Scott does in his job. His previous experience includes his stint as CEO during the HealthSouth scandal. Somehow, following a guilty verdict in the court, he escaped jail time. Go figure.
Of course, there are politicians with long CV's in politics. Unfortunately, as exhibited by the Repugnant Party extremists, from local governments, to the Congress, it not about "public service." They got over that issue. It has become — since the shameful and shameless Gingrich era — the Party for Power on behalf of the richest and most powerful people, and corporations, in America.
One only needs to see how McConnell & Ryan keep their fingers on the balance of power, with Fox Noise to keep them in power.
3
US citizens, or a good many of them, have an unhealthy relationship with their TV.
8
Enough of bored and yes, arrogant movie stars who think they can run the world. We need experienced litigators and politicians.
3
B.S. to inexperience. Once you get elected, there is a myriad of resources available to the newly-elected candidate from where to get help. Also, you are relegated to being a "yes" person to whatever the hierarchy (senior "experienced members) tell you what to do and how to vote.
Up here in Montreal, Quebec, we have a new mayor. She did not have the experience when elected. There was a huge backlash to our last mayor spending OUR tax dollars like water. He spent $ 35,000,000.00 on bridge lights for Canada's 200th birthday, and another $ 50,000,000.00 for the electric car race in montreal (a big loss of money!).
So please, don't give me that "you need experience" B.S. I'd rather have a novice elected than some "experienced" person (kickbacks, NRA stooge, BIG OIL stooge, follow you House or Senate Leader as a sheep does, and so on and so forth)!
Why, I even think I could be a writer for the NYTimes!
2
Frank, you are missing the point.The professions you mention require credentials as well as experience.Politics does not.Absent credentials, it is easy to fall victim to subjective assessment and notoriety in other fields like Reality TV, sports, entertainment and the like.This phenomenon is enabled by the cynicism and lack of candor so many politicians exhibit.The interests of doctors and pilots are aligned with their patients and passengers.The interests of actors and TV personalities are assumed to be shaped by conviction rather than unadulterated self interest.The interests of politicians are widely considered to be primarily personal self interest, notably self enrichment and re-election.Under such circumstances.Under such circumstances it is entirely logical to give non politicians a chance.
1
I agree with FB- but basically I believe he is saying that governing requires experience. Politics is different, and seems to not require it! The issue is the connect between the two. An inexperienced politician may be interesting. An inexperienced elected official likely interesting.... for terrible reasons- our current POTUS the best example
3
That is fair.It must therefore also apply to Obama.
I once asked a manager of an NFL team what his strategy was in the draft- what his criteria were for a quarterback, a running back, a lineman, etc.. He replied that after all was said and done, they picked the "best athlete". In our electoral process we should seek the best statesman. Experience may corroborte his competency, but remember that the government is largely run by life=long beaurocrats who rarely change from one administration to the next.
Bruni makes a really important point: politics and executive leadership are complex skills, best learned over time and through extensive experience.
People grow weary of their incumbents, particularly in legislative branches, and beat the drums for term limits (truly a "solution" in search of a problem: if you think someone ought to leave office, then vote for somebody else). One reason incumbents stay incumbents is that many of them do a good job on behalf of their states and districts. It's definitely the case that large national issues get distorted, ignored, and/or broken up into pork-barrel messes; but then, the states and districts are where legislators have to get their votes.
For some reason many people say they want an "outsider" -- which is another term for being a political rookie -- but the next time someone asks for your vote on that basis, check to make sure you've still got your wallet. There's a strong chance you'll be flim-flammed or, worse, subjected to years of incompetent and malevolent misrule.
4
"It is appalling that we are a country that has descended into a complete disregard for expertise," ... or facts, which is the in the same tent of expertise.
Much of what makes it OK to be OK with not believing in empirical evidence or trusting experts is the religious community pretending to know things they don't know and placing their faith (or belief without evidence) at the heart of their decision making.
When a majority of the population wraps their life view around a folly, because it makes them feel good, then this is what we can expect it to lead to.
5
Yes, it looks like we need that the young People read the book "The wise men. Six friends and the world they made" by Walter Isaacson & Evan Thomas. They will learn how America became so good, so good, so good, during the 20th Century.
The "Long Telegram" by George Kennan is still fresh and wonderful. It is a great example of long term vision.
Just for starters
I'd like to see Cythia Nixon win, just to watch Christine Quinn go crazy. Honestly, Ms. Nixon is the ultimate progressive candidate, a true social justice warrior with little understanding how anything actually works or the other side of the coin. She is a perfect fit for New York.
2
Where was this column in 2016? I've got nothing against Cynthia Nixon, and I don't know much about New York state politics. Though I didn't live in California then, I know that Reagan wasn't qualified as governor, nor was Schwarzenegger, who made a complete mess of the state. Oprah's not qualified to be president. And God knows, Trump isn't, and the nation and the world are paying the price for that. Experience counts, period.
9
If Andrew Cuomo asked Cynthia Nixon to be his running mate as Lt. Governor, she could get some experience in that role and then run for Gov. down the road. I wonder if either even contemplated that plan of action. An interesting scenario on so many levels.
2
Nothing against Ms. Nixon personally, but were she not a celebrity, she wouldn't stand the proverbial snowball's chance of garnering any but the most scant attention and she wouldn't deserve any more than that. A Times article from March, 19, lists among her qualifications that she had once stumped for Bill de Blasio and had organized a benefit for him, as well as having led a women's committee. I think this is what Mr. Bruni is getting at.
4
When Nixon announced she'd run last week, I thought: good for her. She'll be a much needed thorn in Cuomo's side. I don't really expect her to get far, and more importantly, doubt she thinks she stands much of a chance. Rather, she's using her celebrity, and her genuine passion (it would appear) to challenge power. All good in politics, and something we need more of, especially among Democrats who've been yoked into a Clintonian neoliberal ideology for decades now.
But Bruni raises some important questions that we need to face. Albany is a notoriously treacherous place, especially for women. To imagine a woman swoop into that place, with no real allies, no history, no real working knowledge of how things get done, no sense of political compromise, and say: "I'm a lesbian actress and I won. Deal with it" is almost funny to imagine -- except that it has too many Trumpian overtones. Americans have become so cynical of politics at every level, assuming all politicians are narcissists out for personal glory and fame, and with Citizens United, all essentially corrupted. So when a well known person emerges we think -- this person is fresh; this crusader (like Nixon) can reform things. And we need reform, not celebrity. The real problem is the degraded political system itself. And fixing that requires someone with experience. You can't drain the NY swamp if you don't know where the plug is. And that requires getting dirty. And that is something Nixon has not done.
3
I like both Cynthia Nixon and Andrew Cuomo. But I'm old enough to still flinch if I would see political signs or bumper stickers that say NIXON for anything.
32
Thank goodness there are commenters as old as you and me, Gaudi, who recall and truly flinched at those bumper stickers. Those were some dark days, weeks and months, not unlike similar feelings so many experience today.
Great comment!
4
In an era when many lack the credentials to get well paying jobs, politics is an excellent career choice.
2
Illinois has a governor who had not experience. We had NO BUDGET for over 2 years.
Now we have a race for governor that includes the current inexperienced governor and another candidate who also has no experience.
Go figure.
Oh, It was all about money. It is predicted that this governor's race will the the most costly of any previously held races.
2
I have asked this question so many times......
Why is it that a doctor who has responsibilty over many of the patient's destiny needs to study for years and then get a license to practice, and an architect, and an engineer, and a lawyer, and the same requirement is absent with politicians that have entire countries to take care?
7
When I read articles like this one, I pine for Al Franken, and entertainer and comedy writer who entered politics, barely won office, and then hunkered down to learn the details of big issues affecting his home state, while also using his quick mind to absolutely destroy empty suits like Jeff Sessions.
No wonder Roger Stone and his merry band of tricksters set him up for a huge fall from grace. Just think what Franken would have done to Trump in debates.
So actors and others without political experience can make a difference. I know nothing about Cynthia Nixon (or Andrew Cuomo) but if she is smart, has a fresh perspective on issues, is courageous, and is willing to do the nitty-gritty work of any elected official, then why not. Call it the Franken Rule: how celebrities can be successful office holders.
3
Exactly. No disrespect meant for Nixon, she is a wonderful actress, but being a frustrated parent with acting chops doesn’t qualify her for Governor. And by the way the entire state isn’t as liberal as her Brooklyn enclave. Like many things, running NY is complicated. We don’t need another acor turned politician learning that at our expense.
2
After a 50+ year career of commercial and military aviation, I often repeated that some pilots had thousands of hours of experience while others had thousands of one-hour experiences flying. Experience, intelligence, and aptitude in combination serve society best. The newspapers report the shocking news that a medical doctor or popular singer or professional athlete just killed themselves flying their own airplane. I knew of fellow professional pilots lose their own life savings relying on their gut instincts or “inside information” from a friend. Not all skill sets or success are transferable. Our current POTUS ran as an “outsider” like many do, bragging about their ignorance, like a surgeon who hasn’t killed anyone yet. He ignores good counsel like he did with his many business failures, relying only on the threats of financial and legal retribution to get his way. He insists in his mumbling, bumbling speeches about how smart he is, innacuately listing his failures as accomplishments, all easily exposed if someone cared too. Eventually, the trickle of desertions will be a landslide as enthusiasts reluctantly realize the man is an intellectual mirage of hubris and deceit. It’s not a miracle he’s our president, but a miracle he graduated from high school.
7
A smart person, if they surround themselves with experience, can lead in almost anything.
With all due respect Mark H, that assumption only holds true if the smart person knows at least SOMETHING of the scope, job description and parameters of the position in the first place. Otherwise, how would a smart person know what to believe, question or reject when experience individuals suggest a plan of action or problems with an issue? There has to be some degree of experience from the smart person who's doing the leading otherwise, who's really in charge and running things? I don't think a "puppet" politician helps anyone, on any level.
5
I agree with the columnist. But why does did not apply to those Parkland children who now are considered to be weapon 'experts' by the Main Stream Media?
1
What a silly comment. As voters, we all are supposed to learn about an issue that is important to us and the young people have learned what kind of controls there should be on guns, like no regular civilian needs to own an AR-15 or any other monstrously powerful weapon.
What I see are children who are near or at voting age who seem to know more civics than the adults in Washington. I look forward to their adulthood. They cheer me at my advanced age, just when I was feeling such despair due to Trump and his dreadful team.
3
I think it's just that people are so sick of the status quo, the unending corruption that infiltrates government at every level that makes them seek something different, perhaps honesty. But I get that experience is important. Just not that corrupt kind. We're all so sick of it. And Cuomo is just as bad as all the other ones, though he tries to act all above it all. He's in the swamp with the rest of them.
The increasing complaints in American society today from above, by the knowledgeable, that experience, education, elite leadership is being undermined by lack of experience, the intellectually shallow, the incapable of leading society, and that for some reason the American public prefers lack of experience over experience in leadership?
The answer to that question seems obvious to me: Leadership is obviously failing to lead to freedom, personal agency, truly better lives for all. If leadership were leading in that direction we would not have the dichotomy of experienced/inexperienced so strong, which is to say the more this dichotomy exists the more it's a declaration that the one side, the experienced, is born to lead, to have personal agency, and the task of the other side, the inexperienced, is to merely follow, to not have personal agency.
Leadership in America today is not leading to increased freedom, personal agency for people. Instead leadership is a controlling bureaucratic, technological state which is ever more determined to elevate what it defines as experience, knowledge, the elite, over millions of other people, and this experience, knowledge, elitism is more and more little more than how to control people, tell them what to do with their lives.
Of course people are recoiling against this. America is becoming an overpopulated, multicultural technocratic/bureaucratic state where leadership is pure control over a declared inexperienced, ignorant population.
The problem with experience is it's a double-edged sword. Too often, political experience consists, at least in part, of experience in logrolling, campaign contribution prostitution, bundling, soundbite rhetoric, pork dispensing, cronyism, ideological lock-step voting, etc. Too often "our" "leaders" in this representative democratic republic epitomize a paraphrase of the old Wall Street saw: Well, I'm doing well, my big contributors and cronies are doing well, and two outta three ain't bad!
3
Worthy of framing!
Most unfortunately too many of these experienced individuals bring their soulless greed, their desire for power and no true love of Country ... hence allowing for the election of an imposter.
1
Totally agree. Actors think if they played a pol they can do the job. Nice lady without a clue...
Frank, you are of course correct, but what experience, other than emanating from the seed of a less power-hungry, less craven, less transparently corrupt predecessor does Master Andrew actually possess?
2
So, Frank Bruni, according to your logic the best opponent for Cuomo is one that has experience in being corrupt???
3
The worst thing about Nixon isn't her celebrity, but that she's parroting de Blasio's style of faux-progressive claptrap, totally out of touch with reality. He's a political hack who thinks he's Bernie Sanders, and she's a narcissist who is clueless about those our of her circle, such as upstate voters. How about running for your local school board, Ms. Nixon? Too boring and lowly?
www.newyorkgritty.net
1
I'd gone away from the computer screen to stir the pot in the middle of the piece, and I'm tired, and I'd forgotten the subject, so when my eyes rested on a sentence in which Nixon was called an unqualified lesbian, I thought Richard, and for the moment the world was kind of fun.
3
She may have "Sex and The City" but she won't get any north of Yonkers.
1
If any of us had a close friend or family member acting the way Trump has over the course of the past year, we’d have stopped talking to them long ago, advised them to see a doctor, kicked them out of the house or called the cops.
And yet the man hangs in there, seemingly remote and aloof from any deep concern other than Mueller that justice or the regard of the American people for their own self-interest will force him out of office.
I’m coming to think, more and more, that he’s right.
In America, it’s come to be all about the entertainment.
The man who can keep this country bemused, confused, astonished, angry, happy, perplexed, up to its neck in porn stars and always wondering what’s-going -to-happen-next has it way over any any reasonable, rational, responsible, respectable opponent you can name.
America craves entertainment night and day, and that is what this awful man is giving us 24/7.
I am afraid he and his kind are going to be with us for a long, long time.
1
If we knew what Ms. Nixon stood for other than making the subway better and housing more affordable (who doesn't?), then we probably could evaluate her on something other than whether or not she's qualified. However, she's likely incentivized to stay silent on policy and opinion for as long as possible.
1
We now have a president who thinks his natural authoritarianism makes up for his lack of experience or knowledge on myriad subjects pertinent to the job he acquired by dive bombing the stage.
It appears Ms. Nixon imagines her liberal activism is the equivalent of experience. There's nothing wrong with expanding one's activism from any political perspective, but the next stepping stone is more appropriately a modest leap into the legislature or a state appointment where one learns the ropes.
Interestingly, our biggest economic rival is China where experience and more expansively the elderly are revered. Obviously that has its own dangers in excess, like the appointment of a president for life, but somewhere in between naive hubris and automatic reverence for authority there lies an excellent pool of talent to draw on.
2
I share many of Mr. Bruni's biases against the celebrity candidacies. The alienation of voters from established politicians is a reality and understandable. Put more bluntly, they don't trust established leaders or the institutions established to serve the public interest.
It's certainly interesting that Nixon's candidacy comes at a time when Hollywood types are becoming increasingly suspect as to their values and behavior. Why, then, their plausibility as elected officeholders? Sex and the City seems an ironic reach.
In many respects, all one need consider is the sorry perception of our governmental leaders, and the concomitant belief that while they are elected to serve, their primary goal appears to be serving themselves.
Politicians have long played on voters' emotions. So, too, have actors, many of whom have sharpened their craft in ways not dissimilar from the skills relied upon political candidates. Both professions presume and play upon an emotional connection with and adoration by their viewers, based upon carefully curated positions and tactics explicitly designed to engage their audience.
Inexperienced candidates have long relied on the promise that they will surround themselves with highly qualified advisors, and there is some reason, at least, to believe that actors can do at least as well in that regard as incumbent office holders.
After all, it's hard to do any worse.
2
It's the media that shows the most excitement for celebrity candidates like Oprah and Nixon. Nixon is not a serious, qualified candidate so stop giving her more airtime and column inches than she deserves.
7
By the way, I think the Golden State Warriors would benefit from a new face, one with thick, lustrous, facial hair, and I believe I have that face. Curry never makes a shot worth more than three points, and his facial hair is totally weak.
Never having actually played basketball is a big advantage I have over Curry, because I'm not trapped in the old way of thinking. Shooting four-pointers never occurs to him, but I can imagine 5, 6, or even 7 point shots, and also fining the referees for bad calls, getting in the way, or even just not being supportive. It's amazing the great ideas you come up with when you aren't constrained by knowledge. I believe my lack of knowledge, facial hair, and comment writing ability more than make up for my lack of experience. I'm ready to sign...
7
Perhaps someone has to lead the hunting party. Or gathering party. Perhaps those skills lend themselves to picking what to track, or where to find the best food. Who to pick to throw the spear or bow and arrow, or rock or where to dig. Who to know whether the plant is poisonous or best at skinning the animal to get the most meet. This leadership and organizational skill ,maybe, is passed down thru generations resulting in a Lincoln, Churchill, Benazir Bhutto, or Golda Meir. Maybe these "political skills " have something to do with natural selection. These skills certainly have nothing to do with being merely famous .
2
It's not just people choosing to run for public office. without what used to be considered the relevant expertise/experience/knowledge/skills. It's also (or even more) about the people who support them precisely for that reason. "Vote for X for president because he is not a politician" is not that different from "Hire Y to fix your roof because he is not a roofer."
Somehow we are devolving into a society where anything from historical fact to scientific principle is considered just a matter of opinion, and the only skill set people are reinforced for acquiring is the art of self-promotion.
5
If sports teams were put together by judging the way the applicants talked about how bad the other players were, I might have a shot at the NBA! Even though I'm 63 years old and 5'7"!!!
Seriously though, the problem is that the best communicators - actresses and actors - learned how to use the microphone while the rest of us have been acquiring other skills. What is it with all these Academy Awards and Golden Globes and Sundance festivals? Acting really isn't that important, but they so convincingly act like it is, we go along them. We are used to allowing ourselves to be taken in. Where is the awards show for best fireman, or policeman, or surgeon?
7
To be the executive magistrate of a government, whether president, governor or mayor, one needs vision - to know where he or she wants to take the country, state, city - and a moral compass by which to navigate the inevitable compromises that leader will face on the journey. Trump has neither. His vision is at best superficial and he is bereft of anything we could call morality and instead is entirely transactional. In addition, a great leader must surround him or herself with experienced professionals who know and attend to the details that would otherwise overwhelm the execution of the leader's vision. Here again, Mr. Trump is a failure because he lacks the experience and wisdom to see that unlike his business empire, as President, he governs not by fiat but by consensus. Lacking experience and eschewing consensus builders as advisors, he has doomed his Presidency. This is how experience works in government - having been on the barricades of democracy, a leader has experienced how to govern. Ronald Reagan also lacked the relevant experience when he became governor. And I'm no fan of his, but at least he had the wisdom and judgement to surround himself with experienced hands.
1
And yet, so called "experienced" politicians have all been bought and sold, none are really free agents open to service on behalf of the people, generally not specifically like the 1%, the gun lobby, the pharmaceutical companies, etc. etc. etc.
Voters are attracted to Trump, Cynthia Nixon and others precisely because they appear to lack the aforementioned baggage.
Political experience is cheap until you remove money from politics. If you want experience then build a wall around Goldman Sachs, the Mercers, Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers.
10
Appearances are deceiving.
The real question remains is the experience and skill set transferable, and is the moral compass and energy going to be beneficial in the process. Let's add is the person sensible and capable. If you do not want to read, explore details of laws and deal with the fact-based hard work, then I have a problem (currently one in D.C.).
Many women have massive skills but have never held office. I do not think they should be barred for lack of government experience. Gender may have been the hurdle or access to money or perhaps "grabbers".
The problem with Trump is not his inexperience, it's that the experience that he had, like Trump U, the multiple bankruptcies and hundreds of cases of non-payment of contractors showed what an awful leader he would be. Don't judge her before she makes her case.
5
I have always been fascinated as to why generals often do well in high executive political office, while business executives(at least in my state), not so well
1
Bravo Mr Bruni. I am appaled by our celeb culture: being on TV does not qualify one for a consequential and enormous job. I would back C Nixon for city council, but governor—absurd. I have been a frequent donor to ACT BLUE but they are backing her. No more money to Act Blue from me.
4
Unbelievable that we are even arguing over this with the current President showing us hourly why knowledge and experience are so important for high office. Does one need a public service career spanning 30 years to be an effective Governor or Senator? Of course not. But some experience learning the intricacies of the many public policy issues, as well as a track record of working with others to craft legislation are important qualifications for the job. Working your way up through the state legislature before running for Governor or the Senate is a reasonable expectation. The belief that being a millionaire or a celebrity allows one to bypass the essential training steps is a foolish trend that we the voters should not permit. The immense problem with this, of course, is a campaign finance system that allows the millionaire or celebrity a much easier road to victory than the actually qualified state legislator.
5
The necessity of experienced, educated, elite leadership in society vs. the trend today to elevate the lack of these qualities to position of leadership? I would say the tendency to attempt to elevate the lack of these qualities today to power has to do with the fact that experienced, educated leadership has to do with a vastly defective, controlling Steven Pinker form of progress, which is to say children and adults are increasingly hemmed in in a totally controlling bureaucratic/technological society where leadership just seems to reinforce this tendency. In short, elite leadership doesn't seem to free us not to mention enlighten us so much as it is petty management process under which we chafe. So of course millions want to break out of this cage. What are we to make of a society in which our leaders tell us even cars will no longer drive themselves, no longer be under our agency? We are not progressing to freedom apparently, a development of capacity and increased personal agency, but seeing an assault on all sides against personal agency. Technology which might cause harm is either taken from us or made human proof; the arts have declined; children are hemmed in to strict route to desired outcome in education. What exactly is experienced, educated, elite leadership today other than the cynical belief humans can't be trusted to make their own decisions, that they have to be controlled, told what to do, prevented from causing harm, guided in every aspect of their lives?
What has elite leadership done for us since 1776, but support slavery, genocide, racism, and tax evasion for the rich?
2
I agree with Bruni. If a person is interested in public service maybe she should start by trying to get elected to a smaller job so she can learn. People who run for Governor or President, with no experience, aren't doing the people any favors. Look what we've seen from Reagan and Trump. It's a bad idea.
13
@Sophia from Chicago - not that I am defending Ronald Reagan, but he was governor of California from 1967-1975, and then ran for president in 1976, although he lost. He had some serious political experience prior to his run and win for president a second time in 1980. And then look at all the irrevocable damage he did while in that office for 8 years.
If a political candidate like Reagan could muck up the country so badly WITH experience, heaven help the State of New York if a barely hatched baby chick (a nice and accurate graphic Mr. Bruni) with NO political experience gets elected as governor.
So many comments are filled similar arguments and reasons why Ms. Nixon would be an effective governor as there were from Republicans when Donald Trump ran for office. A person can have all the heart of a lion and the very best interests in hand, but cutting one's political teeth on the highest level of governor is being simply reckless, short sighted, and naive under the best circumstances. Her decision to take on this job cold already makes me question her judgment. She does not recognize nor have the fainted clue what awaits her down the road, much less in the govenor's mansion. How could she? She never ran for ANY political office.
1
The comments supporting Nixon's candidacy prove one of the many good points in this phenomenally well timed piece. TV, the Internet and the ages-old problem of human vanity have convinced most people that their whims and aspirations are as relevant as anything else in the grater order of things.
6
If she wants to run, good on her, that's what democracy is all about. Don't compare her to Trump, Governor is not President.
3
I don't see Ms. Nixon preventing any career politicians from throwing their hats in the ring. So where are they? Oh yeah, they probably cut deals with Cuomo not to run.
Inexperienced or not, Nixon will at least give those dissatisfied with Cuomo's tenure (why no term limits?) a voice.
4
Experience means something in elected leaders. Having successful administrative experience, whether in the private or public sector, makes for a better leader. Reputation also matters. Leaders should have demonstrated honesty and integrity in whatever profession they practiced.
Oprah, for example, has been the head of a business operation, and even though it is tiny in scale compared to a government, that still counts for something. She has also demonstrated integrity and compassion in her dealings with other people. I don't see why she should not be taken seriously as a candidate for political office. Starting as a Congresswoman or Senator would be a better goal for her, of course, assuming she is interested in politics.
Nixon, on the other hand, doesn't yet have the experience or reputation to qualify her for office as far as I can see.
2
With what the establishment has done with politics, Peter Pan has a better chance of getting elected than someone with thirty or forty years of experience for the simple reason, Peter Pan would be running to represent the people rather than the establishment one percent who care very little about the rest of the country or the people in it.
3
If you read the debates on the Constitution, most of the critics were sceptical of elites. They wanted a wide variety of men from every level of society to serve in the House of Representatives. In their view, the only way it could represent the entire population was to have someone from every group and profession. Their ideal representative body would have farmers, blue-collar workers, innkeepers, storekeepers, doctors, merchants, and lawyers. This could only be done by having a much larger House than the Constitution specified.
Their fears proved correct. In less than twenty years, both the House and Senate were completely filled with professional, full-time politicians. Self- government by ordinary citizens proved to be impractical on a large scale.
Every since then, however, a large part of the population has deeply resented the political class. They may be necessary, but they are certainly unloved.
1
I don't think much of celebrities in politics either, but they can surprise you. A half century ago, George Murphy,Hollywood actor and song and dance man, did a good job as US Senator, and of course there was Ronald Reagan, who was long active in politics as an FDR New Dealer long before he switched parties to run as a Republican for governor!Friend of mine from California said that RR had a mind like a computer! 0n the other hand, Hitchcock said that actors should be treated like cattle, meaning of course that an actor without a script is hopeless! True of many comedians today as well.
1
Physicians go to medical school. Pilots study aviation. Most teachers have degrees in education. How many of today's politicians - in Congress, in governors' mansions, in the White House - have studied political science? Politicians aren't, and don't have to be, experts in politics or government. Their job is to represent the people. Good politicians hire knowledgeable aides and government officials to advise them. Their job, then, is to make decisions based on that advice. Trump has failed not only because of his own massive shortcomings but also because he hired incompetent people (or axed the few competent ones). One doesn't need the expertise of a physician, a pilot or a teacher to be an outstanding politician. Good judgment is more important.
5
When I saw the title, my first thought was: "Oh so now that a woman wants to run it's time to get picky about political experience." With the menagerie of foolishness, greed, and mendacity out there among politicians, we can't abide a candidate with brains, wit, energy, and policy ideas we might like, because, uh, she's not a politician, not part of that menagerie? Sorry, no. Let's hear what she has to say, let's put Cuomo on the spot, let's see some accountability from the Governor. I saw her speak for a minute in a clip, and already she offered more substance than empty suits like, say, sound bite Marco Rubio, whom everyone at one time was calling "sharp as a tack". Maybe smart as a tack. And for those who want to mock name recognition and celebrity, don't forget the last name of the guy who is sitting in the Governor's office right now, as if he himself got no boost from his father's name and connections.
7
An ideal candidate would have some public admin experience, an understanding of law or policy, communication skills, and be an effective ethical leader who could address issues relevant to her/his constituents.
After our most qualified presidential candidate (HRC) lost to our current misogynist-in-thief reality tv star, there’s been a push to have more women in power. I know quite a few stellar women who have the experience that readers here suggest (school boards, local councils, etc) and who could get things done. The problem is...MONEY! For some ridiculous reason, no one wants to quit their stable jobs with benefits to spend hundreds of thousands to campaign only to start off by earning a small wage while owing in some way to your donors. How did our campaign process become so impossible for potentially excellent candidates? So in come the rich and famous who are heard, have money to waste in races, and have less to lose. Our democratic process has become all about fame and money while competence is left taking strolls in the woods (though don’t get me wrong, I may still vote for Ms. Nixon.)
3
A couple of disturbing trends:
1. Superficiality is considered better than expertise.
2. Lies are accepted as facts or alternative facts.
3. In lieu of education about, or reading intensely on a topic, the crowd goes with the person on TV who has to be an expert, because he/she is on TV.
GOP budgets cuts feed right into this trend. Decimate education and an ignorant and unsophisticated public is much more accepting of propaganda.
All this is why dictators strive to kill and eliminate the educated professions.
12
I'm not sure what "experience " means in politics. Blumberg did a good job as mayor altho too right wing for me, but the experience of most legislators is just the experience of raising money, glad-handing, and remembering names far better than I ever could.
But as an 82 year old physician, I never was convinced that many in politics were smarter or able to do a better job than I might have except for being better at the thngs I mentioned above. I could never flatter people or be nice to them. DeBalsio's okay but shady things are noted. All of Cuomo's friends seem to be crooks. Nj's senior senator has been in trouble since Hoboken 30 years ago. What great ability do any of them have have that Cynthia Nixon or Reagan or Gov Murphy do not. What useful stuff do politicians learn from "experience"?
7
I served 4 yrs on a local school board. One member was a business man. While none of us had special training to serve on a school board it was evident present & past experiences guided how we thought. The business man had some useful suggestions about saving money, but he also had no interest in bidding for items the district needed to purchase or the importance of processing desired changes. Need a new copier or truck or ... the businessman had a friend or contact who could provide. No bids, no lowest price bidding required, just work with my golf friend or the guy who sold me equipment or .... The good "ol boy" system was pushed. Of course, while a bid could have many parameters limiting the number of companies who could submit a bid on an item, there remained the importance and need to look for the least expensive within the requirements of what we needed. The business man certainly was concerned with price, but never at the expense of giving the deal to someone "I know." Yes, there are certain skills demanded of those who would serve their communities and do it with fairness and always looking out for what is best for the community.
7
Seeing how Trump has reshaped our political culture, I daresay Stormy Daniels has a future in electoral politics.
7
I like experience in elected officials. I also like people with good ideas, fresh energy, and a willingness to wade in and try to effect positive change. BUT I'm not in favor of amateurs in government and governing wanting to start at the top of the ladder instead of climbing the ladder and learning how to do the job.
Nixon is a fine actor but that doesn't mean she knows a whit about running a state government. If I had a vote in NY, I'd vote for the person who has been working in government and isn't a rightwing lunatic -- namely - Cuomo.
13
Ms. Nixon has been heavily involved in state-level education activism for more than 15 years. She was also a de Blasio campaign surrogate during his first run. You didn't find either of those facts worthy of mention?
7
I commend Ms Nixon for stepping up to serve NY state as our youth are beginning their resumes in public service ASAP. The tragedy in my local community Parkland, #MDSStrong, has incited a revolution for change that is undeniable and long overdue. Experience does matter as it teaches real problem solving and leadership . I believe that all our elected representatives from city, county, state and federal offices must come speak at our high schools at organized forums so that we can start to prepare our youth for the opportunities around them.
Imagine if our kids 18-25 years old worked in a division of Homeland Security. Have them troll social media platforms looking for dangerous posts aimed at our schools. I would guess anyone over age 8 would be capable of sending them posts that might be deemed concerning or dangerous.
I trust them.
2
In a moonbeam cotton candy world, Cuomo would receive the fierce experienced opposition he deserves. Well that's not the world we live in. In this real world primary you have a wide-eyed novice standing up to confront a master politician. I know a great deal about Cuomo and so would have a choice to make. I could either vote for Nixon or stay home. But I never stay home.
4
I totally agree with Frank Brun. To be compared with Jet Jeers' article in New Republic March 21 2018, who unaccountably, and superficially, treats basic requirements for government jobs as a "Democrats' Elitis Obsession with Qualifications"!!
5
It seems strange to separate the problems of NYC from the issues of the state. They are interconnected—many people, much commerce and issues flow between them. Homeless people are housed upstate. Farmers sell products to the city. Many people travel between the two. Colleges rely on NYC kids for economy. And so on. If Saying you are going to fix the subway is an affront to upstate folks, that shows you how identity has poisoned politics, and why Cuomo needs to be challenged for neglecting the city for the country, and running as a Republican.
3
The thing about about candidates with at least some experience is voters have already had a chance to see how they function and work in the day to day job of making decisions that follow their political philosophies, as well as handling the routine requirements of bureaucracy. Someone having a big heart is great, but we all know the one about the road to hell...
And for heaven's sake, don't we know how expecting someone to be effective because they're going to surround themselves with the "best" people works out? How's that worked out for us???
3
I suspect Cynthia Nixon might be a good governor but she has no "résumé" to indicate she can handle the job, even if her heart and mind is in the right place.
I'm sure Ms. Nixon's first acting role was not as a star in "Sex And The City." She had lesser roles and proved she could do them quite well before she moved up in the acting profession.
I'd like to see a track record here. Let her run and win some sort of local political office. I'd like to see how she performs her duties in the real world of politics in government and how successful she is at it. She may turn out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and then she should consider higher office. Or, she may be like a fish out of water in the job and be a dismal failure. Better for her and better for the electorate if we knew in advance if she was cut out for the job at the governor level!
9
When the political parties don't represent our needs, we turn to someone who sounds like they will be different. The problem is that much of government policy isn't understood by citizens. We are not well informed. More and more, we're not encouraged to get informed. Instead, the parties and others seeking power have figured out that it's easier just to make us more angry.
Of course knowledge and experience are important. Unfortunately, we don't have time to acknowledge what those things mean.
5
Why, you ask? If I was going to be treated by the best trained & educated surgeon but found out that 50% of his/her patients died, would I keep my appointment? We aren’t against expertise but we demand results! For most of our citizens the results that our expert politicians have produced is unacceptable.
4
This is so representative of the age of wikipedia, when people think they can wing everything - from medicine to governing.
4
What experience does Cuomo bring to the job? The experience of corruption? The experience of self-dealing? The experience of narcissism?
7
"In medicine, in social sciences, in economics and in so much else, rigorous training and painstakingly earned knowledge matter. They’re not badges of elitism. They’re proof of seriousness.
Shouldn’t experience count in politics, too?"
This should not have been posted as a question.
It is unequivocally YES.
Get someone with chops. Some experience.
Cynthia and these narcissistic actors might consider the gravitas of the role, of governance and for the sake of the state pull the heck out and go back to supporting real candidates (and we're still figuring out who they are). And acting. It's what they're good at.
6
Astute followers of NY politics know that a Nixon already runs the state government.
His name is Ed Cox.
1
There is nothing that says "I have no interest in winning statewide" than making the subways your number one issue.
3
Frank Bruni's supports his argument that that rulers with more experience in government are better with an analogy of a surgeon who has done more operations. While this might seem like common sense, these claims can be tested by looking at the results. In medicine, we can use the criteria of patients' outcomes. But in judging government, different people use different criteria depending on what they find most important. I would rank Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Lenin among the worst. Did any lack of government experience prevent them from becoming better rulers?
Perhaps lack of experience is not the crucial factor. Of course, others might use different criteria than what I find most important -- the number of innocent people exterminated. Some might use the size of the GDP, or the size of the budget deficits, etc. as their most important criteria, and then see if it correlates with more time in government. Bruni's analogy by itself is unconvincing.
1
Experience is essential. I agree with Frank Bruni, however look at the governmental experience of those in the George W. Bush administration. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others who got us into the Iraq war. It was going to be a cakewalk, last 2 months, etc. These people with all their experience in government created the worst disaster in American foreign policy that will reverberate decades into the future.
5
Bruni completely misses the point. Cuomo is unbeatable and Nixon knows it. This is a protest candidacy. The real goal is to send him a message and diminish him politically by preventing a landslide reelection. It would be a tremendous political victory even if he wins by less than 5 points. We need to render Cuomo politically vulnerable if we want to get him to change the way he does politics in Albany.
The problem is Cuomo is so formidable that no establishment Democrat is willing to break ranks to challenge him. Therefore the only credible challenger would have to come from outside the Democratic establishment but with high name recognition. For this, Cynthia Nixon is as good a choice as any.
20
Mike Bloomberg had no prior political experience. He was a fantastic Leader. He is and was a fantastic business person. Why do we need career politicians? Donald Trump's a terrible leader and a lousy business person. Shame on voters for blindly following their political party regardless of how awful the candidate.
4
Bloomy wrote himself checks in the billions in the form of tax breaks. He pulled a Putin by bequeathing on himself a third term. Performed millions of illegal searches and crime was lower after he left. He fudged the school scores.
But keep telling yourself how great he was ....
5
All true but... Reagan, friendly Dubya & Swartzneggar(?) all got elected because of their celebrity. Demos hav learned u hav 2 dumb done 2 many voters. All about their feelings! Ugly but that's the way it is. Opera r Tom Hanks would hav better chance than all the brilliant, sincere politicos the Demos could present.
What?
I agree, Frank, but in the age of #metoo Nixon offers an attractive package to the libs who frame everything within identity politics:
She's a woman, an LBGT, an ex-television star and a fresh-faced newcomer. That's more than enough to blindsight a few million votes. And, as we know, some elections hinge on far less.
We only have to look back to the recent 'Oprah for President' nonsense to realize how utterly devoid of common sense so many are. Unfortunately.
But what is she going to do about that last name? Nixon for Governor?
2
Her last name is not her problem. "Nixon" is a fairly common name. They're not related (I think). She should support an experienced politician who shares her views. This Hollywood star, running for political office, is in way over her head. In fact, her ego has gone over her head. She should stick with her celebrity parties and further build her career as an actress. And Oprah too, lest she makes herself a laughing stock.
2
No, no, no. I have had enough of delusional egomaniacs; Schwarzenegger, Fiorina, Huffington, and any other person that has not served in local or state politics that thinks “How hard can this be?”. It is very difficult and compromise and the ability to negotiate is essential. We have turned our political system into a knee jerk popularity contest which includes the present occupant of the White House.
5
Aren't all politicians delusional egomaniacs?
"...and Ronald Reagan's California governorship"...
What have you been smoking?
Ronald Reagan on centuries-old redwoods: "Seen one tree, you've seen them all".
Ronald Reagan, who almost single-handedly destroyed the mental health system in California, causing terrible problems that are still coming home to roost?
Ronald Reagan, who went on to become a president who raised our national debt by irresponsible actions regarding taxes?
Surely, sir, you jest.
9
The fact is that right now there is zero data on whether or not Nixon is qualified to be a governor. Having never served in a public managerial position, there is simply no evidence by which to judge her. If I were a NY voter (I live in Washington) I'd certainly listen to her but she has a tough job to convince me of her worthiness for the position. Trump was in the same camp except by the time he jumped into the race, he had already made a name for himself as a bombastic gasbag. His role during the campaign was to convince me that he wasn't. He failed to do this and is now proving to the rest of the country that he is not qualified to be president.
Business experience isn't worth a hoot as a qualifier for being a president or governor because public service is not a business. The two activities are entirely separate and rightfully so. In business one want to earn money. In public service one needs to give money away (so to speak). I don't know how acting would qualify one to be in public service. It seems to me that acting only serves to have put one's name and face before the public... recognition. If anyone else were to suddenly announce their candidacy for governor of NY, who would care? Perhaps their mother. Perhaps not.
Do we have public servants anymore? Isn't politics a business where career politicians line their pockets at our expense, taking bribes from the rich and doing their bidding?
The inconvenient truth that running a government takes skills that differ from skills formed in acting or business careers is bolstered by the current disdain for education and for professional politicians. Locally, I know a wonderful psychologist running for Congress who has absolutely no experience in running anything other than his own private practice. He has to reach back to the 60s and 70s when he flew helicopters in Vietnam to explain his background, because he has nothing relevant. I respect and appreciate his service, but it's not enough. I prefer another candidate who actually teaches political science and therefore understands the process. Likewise, Ms. Nixon is a wonderful actress and an activist, but what does she know about running a bureaucracy?
2
Australia has not been immune to celebrity politicians. Peter Garrett, a great and charismatic environmental activist and musician, was a disastrous Minister for the Environment in the Rudd government.
2
Yet Glenda Jackson was a fantastic MP in Britain.
2
ISn't an MP the equivalent of a Congressman in the US? Nixon sounds like a good candidate for Congress. She's smart and well versed in her local issues, and takes stances on National issues that her local constituents would approve of.
There is an enormous difference between being a small part of a legislative body and being in charge of one of the largest and most complicated States in the country.
2
In general, I think society encourages people to take risks. Otherwise, we'd be a society of yes people. I think she is simply taking a risk.
I have always equated politics to a popularity contest. The most qualified person does not always win. Sometimes the person with the louder mouth, better promises or lower voter IQ wins the day. Either way, the person you want in the chair at the end of the day needs to have these important skills, 1) ability to surround themselves with smart people for council, 2) adept at consuming / analyzing information, 3) making sound information based decisions, and 4) effective at communication (and not just Twitter). Dumpf is not able to do any of these things...
3
Wasn't LBJ's comment that if someone wants to be in politics they should have at least run for dog catcher.
Yes, there us a tremendous amount of on the job training for political positions yet we are now living in a country where those in charge have no idea of how a government is run.
How is that working for everyone?
5
A sound mind, Intelligence, sincere values, dignity and integrity. Cynthia Nixon seems to possess all of these qualities. Donald Trump possesses none of them. The only thing they do have in common is name recognition. Elected office, for the most part, is on-the-job training. The ability to listen, learn and apply good judgment to make sound decisions is crucial in order to do well in any endeavor public or private and be a valuable asset to ones community. Ms. Nixon seems to have these qualities in spades. Mr. Trump has proven that he does not. Enough said.
5
It is time we address the true failing of our system: the fact that we allow a biopoly of political power. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires this to be the case (though it could be argued that the need to earn a majority of Electoral votes creates a defacto need for two parties.) It is time to end the primary process once and for all, and move to a system where any candidate can run in the general election. The only purpose that primaries serve is to control the access to the ballot, and to control the access to the massive political donations that control the parties.
For the sake of our democracy, we need to move to publicly funded elections, where voters can choose their representatives through open, ranked-choice general elections.
3
Thank you, Frank. This needed saying. There may be exceptions, and I have no idea whether Cynthia Nixon is an exception and has heretofore hidden talents and abilities in the area of governance, administration, and persuasion. If so, she should be expected to demonstrate those abilities in the course of her campaign for the nomination. I know of myself that I have a great deal of political passion, and I occasionally have a good political idea. My life as a student, a teacher, a lawyer, a spouse, a mother, a volunteer, and a writer in no way prepared me for high political office. I might do fine on my small city’s council, but beyond that, I know my limitations. Fame and exposure are no substitutes for expertise in the art of governing a state or a nation. As in any other pursuit, there is a path that needs to be trod and trod well in political leadership before one takes on climbing to the peaks of political responsiblity and power.
9
Sorry Frank I totally disagree. I say its all about a person's values.
As some of the comments have suggested, "what 'experience' is a prerequisite?"
What has this experience brought us. Experience in fund raising???
Almost ALL politicians complain their day is taken up by too much fund raising.
Experience with connections?? Who the big donors are? Who the big players are? Who to be loyal to within the political parties??
At the time Bush and Clinton were elected as Presidents their states' rankings were last or next to last in every important factor such as education, health etc.
If there is one silver lining with the 2016 election it demonstrated that both Trump and Sanders were able to attract the electorate from OUTSIDE the political parties.
Unfortunately, Trump is proving his values to be totally narcissistic, discriminatory, completely lacking of moral turpitude, lacking any intellectual capability and a complete lack of sympathy for other people.
Is this due to a lack of experience or the person he really is??
I truly believe that anyone with the right "values" can become a successful president or governor. Obviously, the first order of business is to appoint and surround yourself with people who are "experienced" on how to get things done and who have the same values.
If a person has good values, why shouldn't they run for office.
Its not Trump's lack of experience that hurts us in the end, but his poor values and the people he surrounds himself with.
8
It was such a dissapointment to listen to the rhetoric Nixon is using. She is taking a page from the divisive Bernie Sanders playbook. Questioning who is a "real" Democrat. Please, enough of that nonsense...it delivered Trump.
Ms Nixon: Contrast your policy proposals, but labeling, name calling, and purity tests only undermine your causes.
10
Was it Bernie that was divisive, or the Demoncrat party that aimed to destroy him?
When I was a child, Sputnik was put before my generation as a challenge to be matched, and American interest and dedication to science and to technical knowledge took off, well, like a rocket.
For hundreds of thousands of children, watching live TV, in school, as a teacher, a font of science and learning, and of the excitement of technology, rocketing aboard the Challenger, carrying all civilization toward the Final Frontier, that living icon... was exploded to atoms before their eyes.
The shine went off all that sciencey techy stuff, and they decided the closer you got to the head of the class, the greater the danger.
Those frightened kids became the ignorant, scared Trump voters.
1
Leave Oprah out of this mess. She never said or did anything to run for Pres. People threw her in the race but she said No. The issue is solely about that no talented actress on Sex and the City. She can barely act and now she wants to be Gov. Cuomo's father was gov, he has been in politics and gov't his whole adult life, and has been a decent gov. for 8 years. Can Nixon even come close?
This is nothing more than affirmative action for white babes and white babes privilege, just like white men. Stop the madness. We don't need white woman to be on politics this badly. How about some women with color who are truly qualified (tish James, etc).
White women are no different than white men when it comes to jobs and power
o
5
I don't think that one's parents' jobs count as qualification - that way lies monarchy.
2
That "no-talent" actress has won two Tony Awards, which unlike film and television awards are not popularity contests.
And Cuomo has been a corrupt governor who refuses to lift a finger to help solve NYC's education and transporation woes.
2
One more thought. Wouldn't most of us prefer a random person off the street as President than the maniac in the White House now?
3
We came close in 2008 when John McCain chose his running mate
8
I think taking a random person off the street would be a worthwhile gamble.
1
What kind of expertise on food did Frank Bruni have when he became the chief food critic of the Times? Eating it? He was an accomplished political journalist (though he seems to have missed the mortal threat to peace of George W. Bush when he covered his campaign) who applied his skills to eating out. Skills can be transferable. We have too many elected officials who have done nothing but politics their whole lives.
Nixon has been a hardworking actor since childhood and an accomplished director with a passion for timely plays--so valuable in understanding the people she is hoping to lead as governor. She's been a civic activist--on public education, LGBT and women's rights, and more--for DECADES. She's also been on the front lines of the political campaigns of others. She knows the business.
Andrew Cuomo has raised $30 million to vanquish his opponents--special interest money that keeps the status quo in place in a state where the real estate and health care industries and wealthy dictate policy. Cuomo is a traitor to the Democratic Party he is supposed to lead, empowering rogue Democrats in the "Independent Democratic Conference" who collude to keep the Republican MINORITY in the State Senate in power, thwarting progressive legislation on universal health care, tenants rights, fair taxation, and more.
Nixon is no dilettante "celebrity." She has a famous name--as does Cuomo. We would be lucky to have a such a brilliant, compassionate, independent woman as governor.
13
According to this line of thought, every parent, every actor, every person involved in political activism, is, apparently, equally qualified to be a governor of a state with 62 counties, one huge city and several large ones. Maybe more of us need to run for governor--oh, but the rest of us aren't tv stars!
5
The sheer narcissism is nauseating.
Speaking of plumbers, don’t you wish Trump was one?
5
Not near my pipes. he not only cant stop leaks, he starts them!
4
Frank Bruni would be a lot more credible if he were to give at least a passing nod to the elephant in the room: The majority of elected officials have ample experience, but that does not seem to have translated into a product with which most citizens are satisfied. If lots of exprience generates lousy results, then who can fault voters for seeking something else in would-be officeholders?
19
In 1966, Ronald Reagan was elected Governor of California. Prior experience: actor, activist, and president of the Screen actors Guild. Cynthia missing only the latter.
3
I don’t see why one justifies the other. Reagan shouldn’t have been elected without experience either.
I have nothing against people with diverse backgrounds running for office. But it’s ill-advised to jump straight into such a high-level one. I would gladly support Cynthia Nixon or Oprah Winfrey for a job like city council. Then see how they do and let them work their way up.
13
Yet he was elected by the people of California. Are you saying that the people should not have been given an option to vote for him? Hillary Clinton’s 1st elected position: Senator from New York. Should she have served on the Chappaqua Town Council first before seeking higher office? I think these arguments are without merit.
2
Frank, thanks for this. This problem of "the degradation of experience" in statecraft is a old puzzle. In Plato's dialogue of Protagoras, Socrates observes that in Athens, if you want a house, you find a carpenter; if you want a ship, you hire a shipbuilder. And if someone with no skill in these areas gives his opinion, and has just his good looks and breeding going for him, he'll get laughed off the job site.
Socrates goes on: "But when the question is an affair of state, then everybody is free to have a say--carpenter, tinker, cobbler, sailor, passenger; rich and poor, high and low--any one who likes gets up, and no one reproaches him, as in the former case, with not having learned, and having no teacher, and yet giving advice; evidently because they are under the impression that this sort of knowledge cannot be taught. And not only is this true of the state, but of individuals; the best and wisest of our citizens are unable to impart their political wisdom to others."
I personally like my political workers well-seasoned, but going with Socrates's reasoning, political skill is something that just comes to some people; virtue (however we define it) can't be taught.
Best wishes to the people of New York as you choose your candidates for governor.
7
Christine Quinn called Cynthia Nixon "an unqualified lesbian" and hardly an eyebrow was raised even though she eventually apologized. Can you imagine if Mike Pence, a conservative Republican, had used that expression towards Ms. Nixon. The liberal press and media would be calling for Mr. Pence's resignation. I guess it is all right for a liberal Democrat to insult and criticize one of their own. The hypocrisy of the left is mind boggling.
3
Shorter WPLMMT: Liberals should be punished for insulting liberals, conservatives get off scot-free no matter what they say or do. Is that about right?
4
I have to defend Cynthia for that one. What she does in the sack with who doesn't matter. Although among the "woke" it may be her greatest qualification. Then again, for liberals criticizing their own, it's open season on everybody. Personally Ms Nixon is a typical Hollywood lib type that makes people vote for Donald Trump
There exist no Cliff Notes for the job of mayor, governor, president, cabinet member, Senator, Congress person, and local political leader, regardless of party membership. If DJT has taught us nothing, it is that one must comprehend what is in place prior to the destruction of the same, simply because it seems to fit a false narrative. Government is complex, frightening, corrupt, honest, and governed by the vagaries and realities of human beings' daily lives.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the USA, its people, constitution, law, checks and balances were a 90 story building. Now let's propose that one's mission impossible will be to demolish it and build an alternative, within that same space. If I am clueless to what has built this 90 story building, what's contained within each floor, I will never be able to demolish it nor will I even know where to begin.
Please don't tell me about 9/11 because I will point out that the same was planned by Osama bin Laden, an educated engineer not a lucky pretender. That being said, education is paramount as is a comprehension & understanding of history, what's been tried and how it failed or succeeded ought never be rejected or poo pooed. This is not to say that new ideas aren't good, but the individual making the decisions has to have experience, a real education, & knowledge that balances the needs of all spectrums of the people it serves. After all corporations are not people, imbued with inalienable rights.
Why are experienced politicians unqualified for their own jobs? 2 words- pac money. Once they accept contribution they are obligated, the longer they are in office the more corrupt they become. I would rather be ruled by an equality loving hippy than a morally corrupt professional.
6
"I would rather be ruled by an equality loving hippy than a morally corrupt professional."
The problem is that we're not supposed to be ruled by any of them. They're supposed to represent us. It's bad enough when when our politicians mistake a brief to represent for one to rule, but help us all when we proles start to think that's their job as well.
6
Just like a BA is required before doing an MA, and the latter before completing a PhD, so should a governor have served as a mayor or other type of political agent. It is a shame we have tests and licenses for something as simple as hair-cutting or real estate sales, and yet nothing for the top office in a state. Likewise, Presidents should have minimal requirements too, -- like having served as a governor... Good job, Bruni.
73
Neither a Republican nor a Democratic issue, this is a problem for all Americans to wake up to. Anyone ever notice that the Brits and Canadians consistently bring forth good leaders from both the left and right? That's because in their system ONLY experienced people can rise to party, and therefore national leadership.
8
The Brits and Canadians have good gov't because they have a fairer tax structure and health care. Also have more than 2 parties running the show, and no PACs.
Along the same lines. I think Neal Patrick Harris would make an excellent secretary of health and human services. He was a very good MD TV character since he was a kid.
6
Candidates sought to run for public office. Applicants needed. See brief job description requirements attached.
Job description. We are trying to preserve the longest lived experimental constitutional democracy in the world. Candidates need to register their desire to run and campaign for support from their continents.
Minimum Requirements. Candidates must’ve a Law Degree in Constitutional Law from USA accredited university. Knowledge of constitutional democracies and government are a must.
3
you know...the whole "experience" thing...Kings (and their offspring) would defend that position to very end...and isn't that why we chose a different system of government to being with?
as another comment stated, EVERYONE is entitled to run, lack of being successful in the job will eventually wash you out.
Trump is a disaster (and a disgrace) for our country, but only because the party in charge (the GOP) refuses to perform the necessary duty the constitution placed upon them to reign in someone like trump.
does experience help? sure! is it the "end all be all"...I don't think so. leadership is about corralling the right forces behind you for a given purpose. who can say where that leadership comes from.
we've seen the "experience" and "leadership" Cuomo.brings to the office...and find it severely lacking. so there's you "experience" for you..
4
The difference is that most progressives do NOT fall all over themselves with adulation for celeb candidates; some do but most are critical thinkers.
I wonder if the same could be said for most Trump supporters.
3
Your point is taken, Mr. Bruni, but is not always true. At the October 19, 1960 Al Smith Memorial Dinner, John Kennedy, in his speech, said of Richard Nixon's campaigning on his experience as Vice President for eight years said: "I think the worst news for the Republicans this week was that Casey Stengel has been fired. It must show that perhaps experience does not count."
More prophetic then he knew.
1
I'm reminded of how Hillary Clinton decided she needed political experience to run for president, so she took the time and effort to get elected and re-elected senator before taking the next step. Her reward was to be vilified and despised because she was part of the system.
So, while I agree with Mr. Bruni regarding Cynthia Nixon, I fear she knows what she is doing - right now experience confers a disadvantage to being elected.
6
Where are these people with "expertise"? I agree Nixon running for governor is a stretch, but where are the people who should be running? I suspect Nixon would have welcomed an experienced qualified challenger to Cuomo except that there is none to be found. So, from that perspective, why not? We keep complaining about the dearth of candidates, but when one steps up, we complain about their lack of qualifications. She should run and the chips will fall where they may. NO politician should run unopposed.
6
Bravo. She is even less qualified than Trump was.
2
Richard Nixon was an experience politician, we know the end of the story. It shows that experience is not always "the safer bet".
2
Trump, the Red Queen, has given inexperience a bad name. Like everything else Trump not to be trusted or taken as a guide. Ms Nixon may turn out to be the best candidate. Experienced politicos may know better than to challenge a sitting governor.
3
While I don't doubt that many have issues with her politics and lack of experience, one need only watch her announcement video to see that Ms. Nixon only seems to care about New York City. New York is a large and diverse state, and she should be able to recognize that to have any chance of winning. She should consider running for the New York City Council, or even for NYC mayor in 2020 (this is de Blasio's last term, right?) Aiming for the governorship right off the bat seems foolish.
59
The first elective office Andrew Cuomo ever ran for was ALSO statewide--for State Attorney General. No one insisted he run for the state legislature first. He had a famous name.
2
The problem is that the state controls many city functions, funding and services. She hasn’t said yet what she plans for NY State, but Zephr Teachout probably has some good ideas. Big money in politics is something that everyone can agree is a bad thing. There are many upstate residents that travel to and from NYC, so you can’t assume the issues of NYC are separate from the economy of the state as a whole. Just like many farmers sell their goods to the city.
1
You raise an issue prevalent in all fields in our country today, and rightly note such. We are in a world of narcissistic self made thought leaders in every domain. I have witnessed how this ignorance and denial remains such a critical threat to science, healthcare, international relations and education and the sustainability of our planet. However, the perspective’s penetration of our current “president” and administration points out how this thinly veiled media influenced “leadership” is profoundly and frighteningly incompetent. Your piece was so on point: a call for respecting true expertise, and actual evidence of deep track records. Thank you.
5
I agree totally. At least with Reagan, as much as I don't particularly think he was great person per se, he had people around him ideologically opposed to my positions but who had experience in running the government. By the time he got to Washington, he had people who knew how the government worked, knew how the people who run it are hired and did so; Trump is now more than a year in and he still can't figure out how things are run, key positions are unfilled and at top positions we have had a revolving door, and despite what the idiot supporters say, it isn't getting any better. Reagan learned from those around him,listened to them, Trump has learned nothing then to act like the autistic little kid he is inside. Among other things, Reagan actually understood the value of the office of the president, respected it, while Trump is nothing more than a nihilist.
My big question for Ms. Nixon or Oprah wouldn't be government experience, but leadership. Reagan for better or worse knew how to lead, which is the key thing an executive head needs. Leadership is a lot of things, but among them is the ability to know what you know and don't know and defer and learn from those who do. It is much like the military, and history is full of cases of inexperienced military leaders causing a disaster when given control because they refused to listen to their subordinates, and that is what we see with Trump.
5
I'm tired of corrupt Dems-in-name-only like Mario Cuomo and Log Cabin Republicans like Frank Bruni pretending to have New York's best interests at heart. Neither man is a progressive in any sense of the word.
I'm with her.
7
Of course I meant Andrew Cuomo, not Mario; chalk it up to living in New York throughout the father's administration, too.
2
The plumber example - that speaks. Thank you for your thoughtful article.
2
Bottom line, she is using her celebrity, as a "brilliant actress," to move into the political arena, like Arnold. Neither Andrew or Cynthia would get my vote.
18
Well, somebody needs to primary Cuomo. New York can do better.
6
"brilliant actress"? Come on, Ben. Don't lay it on thick on one hand, so your criticism doesn't sting as much. She's a fine supporting actress. That's it.
3
Cynthia Nixon won the Tony Award for Best Leading Actress in a Play for "Rabbit Hole" in 2006 and, yes, the Tony for Best Featured Actress this past year for "The Little Foxes" (even though she was one of the stars with Laura Linney with whom she rotated roles). She also has a raft of Emmy Awards and even a Grammy for spoken word work. She's a brilliant actress. And, I can attest from interviewing her on television, whip smart.
1
This is insane. A quick view of the comments show:
1) People think Mr. Obama had zero experience in the government (ignoring his tenure in both the Illinois and U.S. Senates).
2) People think that Ms. Nixon can simply learn the job as she goes along (like people said about Mr. Trump, because of his business experience).
3) People are willing to vote for Ms. Nixon because the alternative choice is horrible (like... well, you know...).
This is 2016 all over again.
72
Realtive to item #2 on your list:
Trump's fan base — 30 million of them — filtered out his business failures as a biz fraud with several casino bankruptcies — all while putting the losses on everyone else's shoulders.
Trump is running the country into the ground just like he does with his business interests. And let's note that many of his business partners are turning their backs on the Trump brand with the Trump name being removed from the buildings.
As America's reputation continues to circle the drain around the globe, Donny Jr. is trying to secure four large projects in India. Will those Indian investors continue to trust the Trump organization while their faith in the Trump's America fades?
Celebrities in government rarely achieve anything good. Ask voters in Minnesota how Gov. Hulk Hogan ran their state. Arnold Schwarzeneger's terms in California were frequently subpar with little to brag about.
As for Ronald Reagan, he was a disastrous governor of California while his two terms in the White House have as many detractors as fans.
I agree with our fellow writers about qualifications needed for public office. They should start with the "farm clubs" of local elected positions and work their way up the ladder from there.
1
Somehow, depth of experience did not deter the New York Times from endorsing enthusiastically the enormously qualified four year (half of which he spent running for President) very junior Senator from Illinois, who brought to the U.S. Senate the enormously expansive experience of seven years advocating the interests of the 13th District of the Illinois Senate. Indeed, that breadth of experience clearly not only made him presidential timber but even a Nobel laureate!
2
Are you comparing serving as a United States Senator to starring in Sex and the City?
I feel they are signigficantly different degrees of "inexperience".
Yes: Democrats were the first ones to show the need for a President that would be skilled at being a co-star.
We loved Obama until he signed the Monsanto Protection Act. Then he sold us down the river.
Except for your tiresome bashing of Gwyneth Paltrow with its tinge of misogyny, I fully agree with this otherwise well written article, Frank. But one phrase leapt out, music to my ears: "...Cuomo deserves fierce opposition..."
8
I'd point out that this is nuts, and arrogant nuts at that, from one more twit who thinks their limited expertise in one field easily translates to politics and governance.
The prob is that too many people want the job and especially the prestige, and can't be bothered with the drudgery and the years it takes to learn the job and handle the prestige.
As a result--with very rare exceptions--we get more and more Donald Trumps. That is, we get more and more idiots who claim expertise as, say, a dealmaker and businessman, so vote for me. Then they're disasters; and the best part is, you find that even their claimed expertise was hooey, when you look back.
Cripes, go out and get an education first. Then go to law school or something, and edit the review. Then go home and do community organizing, teach some classes on the Constitution, run for office and get whupped, then do a couple terms in the State Senate, then get 'lected to the US Senate, work yer tail off, write a couple books, and THEN run for Prez.
No wonder the Chinese government runs rings around us: you don't get near it without decades of work. This is like watching people who can't mince an onion demand three Michelin stars.
3
I agree with you, Frank. One comparison not mentioned: Arnold Schwarzenegger, who proved to be a poor governor of California. He left office with an approval rating in the mid-20s and in the end was not well regarded by either Republicans or Democrats. His lack of experience glaringly clear, he not only did not have a handle on some key issues, he never learned to navigate the waters of Sacramento and couldn’t be trusted by legislators or concerned groups in negotiating new policies. Though he now might look good in comparison to Trump, Schwarzenegger had similar problems in dealing with others; he simply wasn’t used to it. His inconsistencies and failures hurt our state—and most voters regret electing him.
4
Did anyone else notice that Bruni does no investigation into who Cynthia Nixon is?
I am not impressed with Cuomo.
If Ben Franklin were here today, I bet he'd advocate for Cynthia Nixon.
Experience can also create rigid thinking. I do not see innovation in our government. I see appeasement, resignation, and a rut - not a healthy rut, I see habits of ignoring what is needed to build wealth. It's insane.
Thank you, Cynthia Nixon, for taking this on. What a hard and valuable road you are traveling. Frank Bruni and all these naysayers are what Ralph Waldo Emerson calls hobgoblins in his essay, Self Reliance. Thank you for being a leader. I see your qualifications in your choice to take a stand and speak for those who are oppressed and neglected.
Steal yourself against these greedy, short sighted and small minded fools with your courage. And if it helps, think about Ralph Waldo Emerson saying the word hobgoblin. It's funny, isn't it? Humor helps us keep a clear head. Laugh at these little minds attacking out of fear of....what are they afraid of? hobgoblins ism guess.
Meanwhile, you know the subways, the homeless, the wages, the lack of innovation, the decay of our education system are a result of the current leadership. They allow this to happen, then give themselves a raise. You see that nothing is going to change unless those who are on the outside take a stand.
Thank you for using your "B" status to get some recognition. I giver government an "F". "B" is very good.
6
Remember when the elders were sought out, learning from their experience. The person most qualified to be President? I can name a few: Jerry Brown, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, and I'm sure there are others who have similar experience doing the job.
2
In addition to Cynthia Nixon's appalling lack of management skills (your could even argue that The Apprentice was better preparation than Sex in the City, given their respective contents, although it would be a tough fight to the bottom), there is the fact that once again Liberals are attempting to foist a candidate who, by her own admission, knows next to nothing about anywhere in the state save New York City; and that is death when running for governor (for president it makes only slightly more sense, but more). And if she siphons off votes from the execrable Cuomo, you want real hell back? Try another Republican governor aimed at INCREASING prison populations, bringing back the death penalty, raising taxes, and destroying rural New York with fracking.
This idea was foolhardy from the start, and could be dangerous in the end. What is wanted is a true New York STATE Democrat like FDR, with ties to both upstate and down, and actual experience in government. Good job, Frank Bruni.
1
An unspoken corollary of this article is that the American people are not competent to govern themselves. I disagree.
Bruni's argument would work better if our experienced politicians had more to show for their efforts. Their positive achievements in recent decades, however, at least in DC, are hard to see.
Our experienced Congressmen have repeatedly passed legislation (tax, banking regulation, etc.) that has helped widen income inequality.
Our experienced Presidents of both parties have gotten us into undeclared wars that have cost lives and huge amounts of money, and that have made the battleground countries worse off rather than better. They were advised by experienced members of the foreign policy and defense elites.
Now New Yorkers have a choice between the experienced Andrew Cuomo, who made his bones as a centrist Democrat in Bill Clinton's cabinet, and an intelligent education activist who wants to address income inequality in the most economically unequal state in the nation. If I still lived in NYC, I would vote for the activist.
9
Why? Because sh says buzzwords that ping pleasantly in your brain?
Yes, that's it!
Like other Democrats concerned about economic inequality, I am an idiot. I just don't understand that there is nothing that can be done about it and that the best course is just to shut up and vote for whoever the establishment puts in front of me.
3
THANK YOU! An effective government leader needs to be familiar with the myriad agencies, players, needs, fiscal realities and machinations; have the patience to work with those realities; and have the wisdom to surround herself with highly competent advisors. Take away any of these components and the populace will ultimately suffer!
It seems like trump's electoral college presidency has encouraged entertainment personalities to think they can act as politicians.
I was proud of Oprah, an intelligent woman who influences lives positively, when she showed her power by refusing to be talked into running for president, as some women at the latest acting awards ceremony were encouraging her to do. Cynthia Nixon should stick to acting, which is what she does very well.
1
The argument is that years of experience will make you a better doctor or pilot. These are technical fields so that argument is correct. But the more time you have in politics, especially on the long, twisted rise to the top, often makes you more susceptible to corruption with an uncontrollable appetite for political donations. I’m happy to take my chances with a relative newcomer who is intelligent, kind and ethical.
6
If you spend any time in government, you quickly learn that here are so many moving parts to keeping it running for the people instead of special interests, that you actually need dedicated pubic servants who have years developing proficiencry and a skill set if citizens and not special interests are to be served. Otherwise, you have a bunch of even well intentioned amateurs who are manipulated by the far more skilled special interests and stymied by legislative rules unless guided by these special interests in how to operate then. What we need are elected officials who are public servants and willing to learn the craft and stay the course. There have been and there ate still such gems, but they are dwindling.
I find it hard to believe that people think they can run for president or governor with no experience as a elected official. It's so arrogant. Furthermore, they are relying almost completely on the people who have built careers in politics.
It's one thing to have great ideas. It's quite another to implement them.
11
Am I the only one to shudder at the thought of a national political figure with the name "Nixon"?
2
Trump has taught us that being different, being an experience businessman and not beholden to Washington cronies will allow you to undo almost all the damage inflicted by Obama in just 12-15 months, even though the experts expected it take at least a decade. By almost every measure, the country has not been in such great shape in decades. While I respect anyone that hates the man for his remarks that can make you wince, "never-trumpers" have very little to criticize about his results.
If Cynthia Nixon can unseat Cuomo, clearly one of the worst governors in the country, why would anyone not want to give her a chance? Cuomo has only one redeeming quality - he hates the even more reprehensible Bill de Blasio.
By the way, if you need a poster child for how much damage inexperience can inflict, there is no one in history better suited than Obama, a community organizer.
2
And perhaps in the next 12-15 months Trump can bring us all the way back to the great days of the Gilded Age, but with all the pollution and poisoned water of Flint on top.
It is true that Obama did nothing to end the constant war that the US has been a part of for the last 20 some odd years but he did pull us out of the worst recession since the 30's, returned us to pretty much full employment, and managed to not alienate every ally we have in the world.
Frankly I for one prefer the "damage" of Obama to the idyllic times we are going through now. where in your estimation everything is close to perfection.
All that being said, it would be much better to have a governor that is inexperienced but actually believes in progressive ideas than one like Cuomo who gives lip service to those ideals and then makes back room deals to destroy the opportunity of actually achieving them.
2
Not that you'll care, but:
1. Reports of Donald Trump's business expertise are greatly exaggerated. He was born rich and connected, staggered through school, grabbed over a billion in taxpayr money, went bankrupt six times, and hit court 3500 times. Oh, and Canada and Panama just yanked his name off failing hotels.
2. Barack Hussein Obama was a community organizer, yea verily. He was also a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law, where he edited the Review. Then he went home, did a couple terms in the State Senate, got whupped when he ran for Congress, got 'lected to the US Senate, and so on. Oh, and meanwhile he got married, raised two good kids, and wrote bestselling books. Without being born rich and going bankrupt.
Trump does seem to have a special expertise and experience with kleptocratic KGB colonels, though. Wazzup with that?
8
Larry Steckman - Please cite even one thing that Obama did to bring us out of recession. When the bottom falls out of the economy and the bar for measuring success is falls to such an abnormally low level, it was almost impossible for the economy to not improve by itself.
Foreign relations under Obama marks one of the worst points in history under Obama, with the single exception of Jimmy Carter. Don't forget his bowing and apology tour , ISIS is the JV and "leading from behind" to demonstrate that no ally could count on the U.S. to be there for them anymore.
1
Cuomo is a goof governor despite the opposition. While Ms. Nixon is a good actress, I don't believe she's capable of bring governor (nor even mayor).
20
Thank you, Frank Bruni. Thank you.
5
And come on, advertising and marketing gurus. Could we please just get over the "Together, we can"-preceded tagline? Its shelf life has long expired and it degrades the impact of Ms. Nixon's campaign.
1
As much as I love Cynthia Nixon, Andrew Cuomo, Christine Quinn, and all the other assorted Democrats, liberals, lefties, socialists, statists and other delusionals (to paraphrase my other favorite person, HRC), I would like to point out one simple fact: provided you meet the qualifications to run, the only thing required to be Governor, President or the local dog catcher is to be elected. It's called democracy.
13
Like many around here, you seem to equalize democracy, a method of choosing someone for a position of power, with the skill required to fill that position. Bad candidates win elections, that doesn't make them good. In societies less corrupted by TV, mass media, etc, the requirements were a knowledge of the functioning of government, and experience (I'm talking about being Governor or President, the positions you mention). Now a visibly incompetent man for the position can become President because he was in charge of a TV programme aimed at the lowest possible level of intelectual capacity, with high ratings. It is understandable that, in an upside-down world,d a passably good actress with high ratings can think she's got what it takes to be Governor.
2
Interesting how the author seems to have 'forgotten' that Obama had next to no experience either.
2
Actually, what's interesting is that you lot seem to need to chant this fake claim a very great deal.
One wonders why you don't simply oppose his arguments, writings, policies and actions. It couldn't be because that takes, well, expertise and knowledge, could it?
4
President Obama had been an Illinois State Senator and a U.S. Senator when he ran for president and we twice elected him.
6
If experience matters how could this writer support the youthful and very inexperienced Barack Obama over the mature, vastly experienced war hero John McCain?
26
Tuco, your comment doesn't address the main point of the article, in fact, it's a fallacious (ad hominem) attempt to discredit the more important point which is not whether Frank Bruni is inconsistent in his endorsement of political candidates. The main and very important point (thank you, Frank!) seems to be that, to the detriment of democracy and robust citizenship, political allegiance and voting decisions seem be rooted increasingly in what could be described as an almost religious outlook, personal loyalty and a blind faith that heeds reasons and experience too little and feelings and positionality very much. It seems that the experience and expertise that is missing is not just that of potential political candidates. Besides, to call Barack Obama inexperienced when running for president is misrepresenting the facts of his political career up to that point.
6
President Obama had experience as senator at both the state and national level. Plus he had worked as a community organizer before he entered politics.
11
His inexperience in politics caused the Republicans to first take over Congress & Senate and subsequently the White House.
1
I agree that experience is important at the executive level of government. Governor and mayor are not starting points for novices. Consider Ray Nagin, Mayor of NOLA during Katrina. Bad things do happen and you want experienced leaders there when they do.
The problem is that political experience ruins people. You might be a great, passionate council member with tremendous empathy but, by the time you get enough experience to run for governor, you’re ruined by the process. The trick is to find the person who has managed to maintain their empathy while working through the levels required to do the big job. Mitch Landrieu from NOLA had family experience which I think counts. Barack Obama was smart and passionate and not too proud or insecure to seek input from all sides before making a decision.
3
Nixon had a lot of experience and looked what happened there. YES, experience counts but it is much more than experience that is needed. Sometimes a fresh look can do better than same old same old.
Hello - how much experience did Obama have in governing when he became President? He inherited the worst economic situation since the great the depression - nevertheless he finished his terms with America's economy strong (something that Trump is in the midst of destroying) with many new laws to protect the health and environment of the American people and diplomatically very much respected and admired around the world.
Yes, experience counts but so does intelligence, including emotional intelligence, a well-balanced ego and knowing what you don't know and getting the best experts to help you do the best job you can.
Trump's lack of experience and his hiring of incompetent people to advise him is a reflection of the prediction of Aldous Huxley in an interview with Mike Wallace where he predicted that in the future a television personality will beat out a person of substance to be President of the United States.
It is not Trump's the lack of experience at fault here but Trump the superficial television personality and the immature emotional make-up of the people who voted for him, and still support him, are very much in sync.
4
President Obama had experience as a state senator and as a U.S. Senator. Google is you friend in Canada, also. Use it.
4
I read Obama's book Dreams of my Father in 2005 and pronounced to everyone who knew me that he was going to be the first Black President of the U.S. I also learned a lot about Obama from that time on until he became President by reading books, articles and most of all listening to what he had to say.
The one thing I do know that while he was a lawyer, professor, and senator before he became President, he had zero, zilch experience in managing the kind of devastating economic situation that he inherited when he became President.
Despite his lack of experience, he became a quick study and was smart enough and secure enough to surround himself with brilliant experts and took their good advice. He may have made some mistakes but he saved the American economy, without having any previous experience.
That was the problem w Trump, a political novice, winning. Now everyone who thinks they're smarter than Trump (most people, right...?) also thinks they can be a politician and do better. It doesn't help that so many career politicians aren't doing their jobs or are doing so poorly (basically, the entire Republican party). But like Bruni, I say we need experienced politicians. Just not the ones we have currently.
The matter of celebrities like Oprah or Cynthia Nixon reminds me of the (true!)
story of George W. Childs.
Childs was a self-made millionaire as famous for his philanthropy as his
work ethic. When he was approached to run for President (yes, on the Republican ticket) in 1888, he refused, saying; "I will not campaign, and if
elected, I will not serve. I am only a businessman who has never held public office".
Oprah pretty much said the same thing when fellow actresses began floating the idea for her to run for president.
2
Nixon has been an activist for years, and certainly knows the ropes as well as any outsider. But speaking of experience, how does being a restaurant critic qualify one to be a political columnist? Certainly people should be permitted to undertake whatever they feel they can handle, and learn on the job.
5
So this is one of those - I agree with you, but also feel incredible frustration over the elevation of political hacks over and over again.
As in - it takes a lot of connections or money or paybacks for most pols to have enough "standing" to run for higher office, and then to be able to twist arms when they get there. ALL of Cuomo's standing, frankly, originally came via his father and an early series of appointments based only on connections - where he hones his ruthless methods.
There ARE folks who have worked their way up - maybe from a local planning board to a town board or city council to state positions to running for Congress. It does bother me when someone starts with a high position - and I know damn well that they have never herded cats before and are going to be shocked at how little real power they may end up with when the cats go running off.
In truth, too, the media gives almost no recognition or airplay to those elected people who do decent jobs, who struggle with inadequate budgets, and competing interests, trying to balance them and work towards a better community. It us often boring - plodding work. And the public generally looks for the unusual event, or a symbolic act to sum up all of the work involved. It is not easy to make competence look sexy.
2
Liberals complain of conservatives rejection of expertise but we complain about socialists and those further left reject expertise as well. Those wedded to ideology and find facts uncomfortable reject reality and that is had experts make them confront.
Many politicians and actors learn their craft, like many crafts through the experience in itself. Susan Sarandon, with no dramatic training became a brilliant actress through her dedication and commitment.
Let me ask what made Ronald Reagan qualified to be a governor or president ? And I'll answer - the financial backing of a very rich, conservative, car dealership owner. No one in our current White House is qualified for anything other than a jail cell and you want to throw shade on the qualifications of Cynthia Nixon? Christine Quinn, like any self serving politician is driven by ego and hot air.
In contrast, Ms. Nixon appears to live her life in truth with a compassion and understanding of the needs of her fellow New Yorkers.
Ms. Nixon will reveal if she has a what it takes to become the Governor of the Big Apple. My bet is she has it.
4
The Big Apple is the moniker of New York CITY.
I live. In New York State. 700 miles away from New York City.
I don't think Nixon knows anything about us up here.
We are living in an era where something that "feels" true is more important than being true. This feeling is reinforced by internet and the echo chamber we create with our friends. As a result, we become increasingly skeptical of expert opinion that differs from our own and hesitant to admit when we are wrong.
5
I agree that experience should trump celebrity in most fields, particularly politics. Celebrities are famous for their skills in one area. Often in this era, and perhaps in other eras as well, celebrities have turned their fame into success in other areas. How many actors have published mediocre or even awful books, for example?
But the reality is that you need the type of massive celebrity of a Trump or a Oprah to really get away with the type of field switching that Trump accomplished. There aren't enough of these types of celebrities who can get away with it. More importantly, Trump has succeeded in making the American public far more aware and concerned that celebrity doesn't usually translate into competence, particularly in politics.
3
Arnold Schwarzenegger, if I recall didn't have a lick of political experience before he took over one of the 5th largest economies in the world, that of the state of California. He served two terms, and had an excellent track record for a Republican in a deeply Democratic state. Not all jobs require extensive training and practice, while much can be learned "on the job", what is more important is the willingness of any politician to listen, to learn, to broker compromise between opposing factions, and to above all, be the voice of the people. A fact that many in public office these days seem to have forgotten.
4
Surgeons, airplane pilots, architects, engineers work and live in environments where they actually must know something and that takes practice, training and persistence.
Even the least educated among us can appreciate what these people do is something above and beyond what they or what untrained can do.
But politicians, presidents, senators do work which is not so obviously derived from knowing anything substantive. Many CEO's fall into that category. What, exactly, do these folks need to know, what DO they know which is beyond what the average, untrained citizen knows?
This is the basis for much class resentment. The idea is the rich and powerful do not deserve their places in American society. Any of us could do as well.
Listening to Congressmen and Senators from Mitch McConnell to Trey Gowdy to Jim Jordan to Louie Gohmert, one can well imagine the average citizen says to himself: I could do that guy's job as well or better.
6
Bruni claims that many experiences other than lower-level gov't work can be useful, but he doesn't tell us what they are or why Nixon's political activism leaves her less qualified than Ronald Reagan's.
Trump is a disaster not simply because of lack of experience. He is is deliberately uninformed, actively misinformed, and a malignant narcissist to boot. He has taken the Republican contempt for gov't and run with it, by appointing people who know little about the agencies they are supposed to run, and all share the belief that they should do less.
Nixon is someone who has been involved in political issues. Does Bruni know how well she is or is familiar with the issues facing the Governor or how state politics works?
6
Cynthia Nixon is a brilliant, versatile actor and we could do (and obviously have done) far worse if she were to be elected. But no, as much as I've loved her decades of work, I have no confidence in candidates without seasoned, strong records of demonstrated success in government. Even with her staunch advocacy of human and LGBT rights over the years, the New York gubernatorial office is a bit of a stretch. She should first test the bureaucratic swamp water and run for a more grassroots office within her state.
7
I have more experience in politics than Cynthia Nixon. It may have been limited to serving on various local boards and commissions, but it is political experience. I also have a kind heart and care about kids in school. I am empathic and intelligent. If I move to New York would you support me for governor? If you wouldn't support me, then why support Nixon?
13
Are you running? People keep forgetting that one has to actually run for the position. If she's running, obviously some people will end up supporting her.
1
I'll vote for you before I'll vote for any of my experienced local politicians. As for our governor, I voted for a pastor instead because our governor comes from Goldman Sachs.
Thanks for this, Mr. Bruni.
Experience and expertise do count. But Americans increasingly discount experience and expertise. Even middle schoolers will say, "But that's my opinion" against all evidence. An opinion isn't a fact. More Americans believe in ghosts than in the laws of gravity.
Ms. Nixon has no qualifications at all to be the governor of New York State, one of the largest and most complex states in our country.
She's interested in New York City. That's nice. So am I. Unlike Ms. Nixon, who has money, I have nowhere else to go if things go the way of the 1970s again.
And I say that between the privileged .01%, who really should be paying a higher federal tax (since they certainly are taxed by the state and city -- but that's not something we can do anything about by electing Ms. Nixon) and the poor who refuse to use IUDs, New York City's middle class is drowning.
But I also feel sorry for New Yorkers whose property taxes north of here can reach $100,000 a year. They're not all rich. They can't support that sort of tax, and they can't always find a buyer who can, either. We're all in trouble.
2
I think your point would be more effective without bringing "the poor who refuse to use IUDs" into it.
1
The real threat to our democracy is money in politics. Corporations are currently in control of both parties.
4
"Corporations are currently in control of both parties."
What is this supposed to mean? Any particular corporations in mind? Do, say, Apple & the Koch brothers really see eye to eye?
If corporations "control" the Democratic party why did pretty much all Democrats vote against the corporate tax cut?
Try actually thinking about our politics sometime. It will be hard, especially at first, but after a while it starts to come naturally.
We do have a huge problem with money in our politics. Quick quiz: which party has labored mightily to ensure that money flows without restriction?
No, sorry, it's not true that both parties have worked hard to destroy any limits on campaign spending. Pay attention!
Saying all politicians are equally guilty is very helpful to the most guilty.
2
Maybe if more qualified candidates wanted to run that represented progressive ideas, we wouldn't need brave people like Nixon to challenge the status quo. Elliot Spitzer was the qualified golden boy - look what happened to him. And career politicians seem to get cynical and accept the corruption and lying that seems to go with politics. Ms Nixon represents a constituency that Cuomo ignores and takes for granted. If you are concerned Mr Bruni, why don't you try and get some professional politicians to run instead of armchair quarterbacking to keep the status quo - which isn't working.
13
I find this populist antagonism towards expertise, training, and experience to be very suspicious. Along with the skepticism towards experience, comes the populist anti-intellectualism. I hear anti-intellectual questioning of graduate degrees as mere theory without practical applications. Even educators can be anti-intellectual in this way. But my graduate programs reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies that contained many empirical tests of those theories, so it wasn't necessary for me as a researcher to experience everything myself in the classroom, but it was possible to gain access to another's experience by critically reviewing their academic research. I feel like this illiberal populism is based on this deep feeling of internal unworthiness, anti-intellectualism, and professional jealousy.
6
Interesting if this is a new phase where ambition and new ideas out weigh prior experience and professionalism in politics. After all, Trump was from New York and had no prior political experience. Voters may be trending toward something they feel is a new direction to go in, and purposely overlook experience. New York voters have had important impact on the direction of politics in general. So far, New Yorkers don't think New York is overrated.
Residents have years of training under experienced doctors. Look who Cynthia Nixon got her training from - Bill diBlasio!
"Experienced in politics," Sure, that's worked really well for decades. If experience relates to the pathetically poor job done by lawmakers with "experience" who attach bill riders to every piece of legislation written, and do nothing but further their own agendas wasting taxpayers money in the process. Where was all this talk of inexperience in governance when the world's biggest reality show clown won the nomination and became the leader of our country? We have obviously changed our standards when it comes to governance, so why not Nixon? I'm almost certain she'd do a better job with New York than Trump is doing in America.
5
How well put, bravo!
3
Adding populists with no experience from the left does not solve the problems created by Mr. Trump and his ilk. Politicians with zero government experience always reach out and rely upon those who are available to "help" them, 99.9% of which are paid lobbyists. Bad for NY and bad for America.
5
So what have career pols in the US done except let the corporations run the gov't? My choices in the last election were Goldman Sachs and a pastor. I'm an atheist and I preferred the pastor. Goldman basically bought the office.
The point Frank Bruni leaves out is character, which is as relevant as direct experience in governing. Does Cynthia Nixon have a track record in politics that is important to voters and is it relevant to how she would govern? The answer is emphatically yes, and it is in no way comparable to that of the current occupant of the Oval Office. Nixon has been on the side of working people, women and the environment, among other issues, for a long time, and she is articulating a platform that is entirely consistent with that activism. There is still a place in our politics for citizen activists, and Cynthia Nixon is in that valued tradition. Compare Nixon's track record on issues that matter to New Yorkers with Andrew Cuomo's, and vote on that basis. Don't rule her out because she also happens to be an artist.
2
Then let her start at a lower level, get some experience, then run for governor. If she is unwilling to do this, then I doubt her true commitment.
12
Unlike most of us, Cynthia Nixon has been out there working hard on everyone's behalf for years and years. She is intelligent, moral, insightful and hard-working. Is there a problem with that? Our current governor is either invisible or when he is visible, works for legalizing gambling or shunning corruption trials or creating agita in NYC. Show me a better candidate for governor, I'll vote for her. Until then, I'm rooting for Cynthia Nixon.
3
If the interests of the people are as difficult to choose and implement that it takes a specialized professional...something's wrong. Term caps we can't have, but fresh faces and minds we can.
1
I certainly support more women in senior roles of politics..and will encourage and vote for them, but I tend to agree with this article which is a caution about simply wanting to upset the status quo with people who may not be really qualified. Do such disrupters really have the right skills to be truly effective?
To quote a 2017 NYU article about the young, non-politician, female mayor of Rome elected in the hope of cleaning up its politics:
"Ms. Raggi was supposed to be the anti-establishment Five Star Movement’s prime example of how a nonprofessional politician could shake up Italy’s politics. Instead, the movement’s opponents now point to Ms. Raggi’s administration as proof that the party is far more suited to tearing down government than actually running it, and that Italy’s new breed of politician is no better than the old one — no less tainted by corruption, no less ineffective and no less unpopular. ....This month, a survey published in the newspaper La Repubblica found that 70 percent of Romans disapproved of Ms. Raggi’s tenure, and so did 40 percent of those who had voted for her."
Hum?
2
Amazing how we liberals think inexperienced GOP is bad, yet inexperienced progressives are good. Tillerson was bad, but Oprah good. McMahan bad, Nixon good. it comes down to most Americans being ignorant of the workings of government, thinking that decisions and implementations are simple, if only "our" person was in the job. If a person cannot take the time to run for a school board or city council, or sit on a local commission or task force, then that person has no business asking for votes for our highest offices. Nixon's delusion of grandeur, expectation of omnipotence, is simply a symptom of the same narcissism that underlies trump.
10
I'm afraid that the idea of running an "outsider" against "Washington" is just as dogmatic and thoughtless as putting a lot of value on a resume. Those who think they are sophisticated because they are cynical and write off the People who Know What They are Doing are just lazy-minded. It's just another false god people are worshiping
I notice a few commentators saying that Cynthia Nixon is being picked on because she is a woman. Now that idea is just as thoughtless and dogmatic. They mention Arnold Schwarzenegger as an example. Guess what? Arnold and Jesse Ventura were disasters as governors of states, just like the current white male who is the current POTUS.
5
And how exactly did you determine that Arnold was a "disaster" as governor of California? Ever live here? He was quite popular and open to trying new things. He wasn't "great", but few politicians are. The people generally found him superior to "experienced politician" Gray Davis, quite an accomplishment for a Republican in a state that always votes Democratic. Is experienced liberal governor Jerry Brown any better? Let's see - his egocentric insistence on an unwanted and unneeded high speed train (which won't even go that fast) between LA and SF is the perfect example of a wasteful boondoggle which is though still in its beginning stages is millions if not billions over budget and may never even be completed. We've got the highest taxes in the country yet the "leadership" thinks it's a priority to pay for the educations of people here illegally. Meanwhile traffic is horrible and the roads are getting worse, and homeless people flood the place (LA), while "experienced" pols utter sound bites that sound great but never lead to meaningful, observable improvements. I don't know if Ms. Nixon would do a decent job or not, but I wouldn't automatically say it's impossible.
Yes, Frank, this is all true. But the fact remains that apathetic voters, told lies by Republicans and Democrats alike, no longer trust "experts."
The Elite have, in fact, failed the rest of us. Entrusted with making sure that everyone in the greatest, freest, richest society benefited from the economic boom of the last 30 years, they have enabled an oligarchy that lies consistently.
How is the average American to discern their best course of action? Pick someone famous who seems to agree with their beliefs. Trump is a disaster for the working class, but they like his pugnacious, racist, uninformed beliefs. What's so wrong with lefties voting for a person who seems to hold their beliefs, too? Ideally, Ms Nixon would surround herself with experts--though we've seen how well that's worked with Trump.
2
While living in California -- a state that broadly permits citizen ballot measures -- I once tried to build support for a law that would require the governor and every member of the state legislature to take an economics 101 test administered by the state university and post their scores on a government website. The reaction among friends in the policy community was devilish bemusement. The reaction among the few politicians with whom we floated the idea was defensive anger and outright hostility. It quickly became clear that anyone associated with the idea would be deemed an enemy of the state. So much for that.
Having worked at a very high level in the federal government, I know first hand that the atmosphere is clubby and highly self-interested. The people are absolutely right to believe that most senior government officials tend to think first about their own career prospects and personal interests, with that instinct being an impediment to doing what is in the best interest of the nation. That said, well-meaning amateurs have too steep of a learning curve and quickly learn that things are far more complicated than they seem from the outside.
Oprah, Cynthia -- just like Betsy and Dr. Ben -- would do well to go home, count their money and find a few NGOs to play with. The professionals are flawed, but at least won't make the huge mistakes. The real key is giving all of them considerably less power to play with.
4
Being governor is a job that demands a number of different qualifications. Having appealing ideas about policy is one of them. Having the ability to wrangle the Legislature is another. But the most important skill is that of management. Organizing tasks, assigning them, and holding people accountable are necessary, but hardly sufficient, qualifications for the job. These are learned skills. Without them, the best ideas will languish in confusion. (Donald Trump is a perfect example of how the lack of management skill can negatively impact an organization.) I have no idea how well Ms. Nixon could handle the requisite demands of the job, but I'd sure want to know before I vote for someone solely on her ideas.
5
New York is a large and complex state whose governor makes a difference (unlike Texas). Its governor should be capable of governing, should know how. I can imagine a really good manager hiring great advisers and pulling it off, but an actor is not the best model for governor. It doesn't have to be political experience per se, but it does have to be relevant experience.
7
In these times it would seem that speaking out as a private citizen can carry more weight without having the restraints of raising money in order to get elected.
The fact that celebrities' words do seem to have a following is a good thing. Late night TV is an example as well as the kids in Fl who have made their voices heard. Watch and listen to those who have a "free" voice, but
vote for the one with a record of experience in government, integrity and courage. Oh, you can't name one? Ah, theres the rub.
2
I don’t see Nixon as occupying the same crowd as a Trump of Reagan, even within the entertainment field. Nixon is more the Broadway creative type while Trump hosted a NBC sponsored brand informercial. Bruno’s NYT corporate elitism really shines here. I guess we can guess where this logic goes — to keep out all minorities and those who aren’t allowed the same “experiences” as the Yale crowd.
Oh, and all that about the MTA and corporate cronyism, or Nixon’s formidable team, Bruno’s not interested!
1
Christine Quinn is living proof that many years of experience does not prevent a seasoned politician from speaking publicly with serious foot-in-mouth disease. Someone forgot to tell Ms. Quinn that great acting requires talent, a key ingredient missing from the toolbox of most politicians. The truly successful politicians learn early on the value of a poker face and a finely-honed discipline for saying smart things when speaking in public.
As for Nixon, I think I'd rather have Baldwin as mayor. Baldwin is the more compelling activist, however, Nixon is likely the better parent.
2
For politics you don't need the same kind of specific training as doctors or economists. This entire argument is a straw-man. You need someone with good values who surrounds themselves with people who know policy. Governors and Presidents need to understand policy generally but they are not policy experts. There is not time to be both a policy expert and a governor usually (someone like Hilary Clinton would have been the exception). Obama was not a health policy expert but he surrounded himself with them in order to make the ACA work (and yes it has issues but that is largely the fault of the GOP trying to break it at every turn).
3
Dear Anonymous from Seattle...I am an experienced woman and a feminist. I have a PhD. I am well-informed. I am literate, write well, and had many years of experience with the public...first as a public school educator and community college instructor for more than 20 years; a progressive activist; a mother; a clinical psychologist for more than 20 years who worked with combat veterans, for women veterans, with refugees from war-torn countries, with children and women of sexual abuse history. I had presented at community and national conferences. I would NEVER run for political office unless it was for a district school board. This is NOT about feminism and MeToo#. This is about experience beginning at levels far below and before the Presidency or even a governorship of a small state.
11
Thanks.
Having no experience is not a pre-requisite for success. Someone who has never been in government shouldn't be a Governor.
5
I'm sorry Bruni, but you lost me way back in 2016 when you got on the NY Times bandwagon, to denigrate Senator Sanders, if you even mentioned him at all, and to praise Clinton. I don't know how good of a governor Cynthia Nixon would be if she were elected, but I do know that Cuomo is a bully, whose policies and actions I usually disagree with. His forcing the charter schools into NYC, the relaxing of rules regarding Uber in the city, his insistence on congestion pricing as a solution to NY city traffic problems, without considering any alternatives, and especially his lack of leadership regarding the subways and buses are just a few things that I find abhorent. I also wonder how more wasn't made about his dismantling of the Moreland commission or the way he sided with then Governor Christie in their treatment of the "ebola" nurse, forcing her to stay in a tent, when she came back from helping ebola patients in Africa.
I voted for Zephyr Teachout when she ran against Cuomo in 2014. Although she had almost no official support or name recognition, she still got 41% of the vote. So apparently, there are many people who recognize that experience may matter, but it's what one does with that experience that counts more. As far as I'm concerned, Cuomo is a sleazy bullying grand stander, who resembles Trump far more than Cynthia Nixon does. I'm willing to give her a chance rather than endure another 4 years of Cuomo.
5
Hopefully this means there won't be a third "SATC" movie.
1
Always look on the bright side of life.
1
Cynthia seems confused about the office she is running for. There are 12 million New Yorkers that don't live in New York City, and don't think their money should be going to fix the subway or the City public schools. Nor do they care for her provincial Manhattan upper West side concerns or her identity politics. Her candidacy is really a joke, she just hasn't gotten it yet.
6
Bill Clinton, an experienced governmental executive, came into office and for two years totally screwed things up, leading his party to catastrophic losses in the off year elections. The problem with Trump is not his lack of experience but rather his stupidity, cupidity and arrogance.
3
We've not recently lost the ability to distinguish between celebrity and reality. It's well documented that a disturbing number of people think that celebrities are the characters they portray on television or in the movies. Even Dan Quayle had to be reminded that Murphy Brown wasn't a real person.
I imagine that if Martin Sheen decided to run for president, and promised to hire Bradley Whitford, Allison Janney, Richard Schiff, Rob Lowe, Dule' Hill, and Janel Moloney he'd easily win the election. If John Spencer were still alive, it would be a landslide.
6
Frank, you're on target with Nixon, Trump, and Winfrey, but not with Reagan. Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild for seven years.
"All politics is local." Anyone who has served on a not-for-profit board, a school board, a church or synagogue board, a bargaining unit board, a county board, or a town board, especially in a leadership position, knows that local politics can be very tough, indeed.
Unlike Trump, who to the best of anyone's knowledge, never sat on the board of any not-for-profit, Ronald Reagan was well suited to become governor of California, and then President of the United States of America.
2
No he wasn't...as his reign as governor of California proved.
3
I agree with both of you. I think the SAG experience was appropriate, but that he was at best a problematic politician with a mixed legacy, the worst aspects of which are part of what's killing our country.
Someone espoused the theory that Trump decided to run for President because he could amass a fortune (and not become President). Fate worked against him badly as Hillary ran a hopeless campaign and Trump became President. I was a Bernie Sanders supporter who would not have voted for Hillary under any circumstances. I voted for Trump, thinking that maybe he would surround himself with suitable people as I thought that is how one runs a business-unfortunately that is not to be and I would certainly hate to work for him!
1
I think I resent Bernie supporting Trump chumps more than any other group of ignorant voters who helped put him in office.
You think his actions in office are "unfortunate?" I haven't the words to respond that the Times will print.
5
Albany politics and leading New York State is not for any novice. Cut your teeth on the local level and hone policy and legislative skills. I cannot support anyone who hasn't demonstrated the needed skill set for governing.
9
That is exactly it.
3
I agree that experience is helpful. At the same time, it seems to me we have a glut of experienced politicians in Congress (not to mention our State Assembly) with little to no integrity or interest in actually serving the people. They use their experience to service their own interests. Ms. Nixon has the right to run and be judged on her merits. She might lose, or she might win. The State could have a worse leader; the bar is at an all-time low with our current President. Cuomo sinks lower in my esteem with every spat and corruption trial.
I will consider her campaign.
4
Having noble intent is no substitute for knowledge and experience. What's missing in our political culture is accountability, which must be imposed by voters. Taking a swing with novices isn't the answer.
3
Jesse Ventura did it right. He ran for mayor of his home town of Brooklyn Park and did a pretty good job of it before running for governor of Minnesota. He wasn't a very good governor (politics is not for the thin skinned and he is nothing if not that) but the time he spent as mayor of a suburb of the twin cities likely prevented his term as governor from becoming an utter mess.
Michael Jordan couldn't hit the breaking ball.
2
I cannot help but wonder why Nixon is not interested in helping Stephanie Miner, the former mayor of Syracuse, an accomplished, progressive, Democratic woman run in the Democratic primary. Is Nixon interested in having the best candidate challenge Cuomo, or is she interested in a vanity tour?
11
I don't know this woman from Adam, but why shouldn't she give politics a try? Look at 5 of our last 7 presidents, a farmer, a B-movie actor, the great-grandson of a rich man, a community organizer and a developer cum reality TV star. Their average experience in political office prior to moving to the White House? About six years. Their aggregate prior experience in Washington? Half a term in the Senate.
And what has the current political class of professional politicians given us lately? Little besides lifetime government for themselves, and, in many cases, their spouses and children, corruption and inaction on most of the issues important to us. On the federal level, at least, they preside over what has been described as an "insurance brokerage for the retired and elderly with an army." They focus endlessly on matters-religion, flag waving-which seem to excite people emotionally, but have little or nothing to do with most peoples' lives. They've been recycling the same old ideas since the end of World War II.
Our recent track record of electing political outsiders from what seems to be the worst elements of American society notwithstanding, I think drawing into government intelligent, hard-working, ethical people into government from outside the entrenched establishment can give us fresh perspective on dealing with the issues that face this country.
3
That might work if the person had executive/management skills & accepted the need to have knowledgeable, experienced people as advisers & key appointees, & listened to their guidance.
1
Stormy Daniels is waiting in the wings.
2
Frank, you're decades too late. That train left the station at least 50 years ago, when Ronald Reagan was elected governor of CA. And remember his career of incompetence didn't end there. Heard of the Governator? Jesse Ventura? The fact is celebrity is now a well established route to political success.
And maybe that's not really a bad thing. In fact no human being could be competent in all domains required to run a state. The real running of the bureaucracy is done by advisors. What we want in the head of the bureaucracy is a proxy for ourselves, and I hope we have learned by now that few politicians have our best interests t heart. I'd take Cynthia Nixon over Andrew Cuomo any day.
4
Some confusion here about political acumen vs. rational / ethically conscious management ability. Folks are tired of politically skilled but low-empathy, ethically challenged candidates. Many would prefer an ethical, empathetic anyone over someone skilled at management within a system that's clearly failing large swaths of the populace. That preference is both understandable and eminently defensible.
7
Well said
2
It is so utterly dismaying to see the "why not Cynthia Nixon?" commentors proliferating here. Here is "why not" inexperienced celebrities or indeed, inexperienced ANYone else: This is not just any job. A politician's decisions, even at a lower level than governor, affect people's lives. Does someone who simply dives into the deep end of the pool understand all of the ramifications of their decisions? Forget about vital administrative knowledge like how bills get passed, deep knowledge of our legal/judicial system, how money is allocated, endemic instituionalized racism, how micro and macroeconomies work, all the history of past projects have failed and why they failed so as to learn from past mistakes, etc. Think about how many people's actual lives have been affected by 45's ignorance. And then think about the Pollyanna insouciance of someone who believes that because they have a high profile and good convictions, they deserve to be governor. That hubris alone should trouble us. And if that doesn't cause a flutter, imagine how the RNC's bare-knuckle campaign experts will use Nixon's many sex scenes from her SITC years. Oh of course she's a good actress and she was acting! That will be no deterrent to her opponents in the party of Grand Old Panderers.
3
I may have missed it in these 999 comments but this seems to be a great opportunity for Hillary Clinton to have one last hurrah. And she'd be able to confront the POTUS.
4
Tom Perez himself said that for Democrats its all about values (as has Nancy Pelosi). That being the case, I personally think Ms. Nixon's values are exactly what we need right now. If the Dems have a something different to say, then Tom Perez and his crew of overpaid consultants should say it.
3
What experience did Reagan have when he ran for Governor of California? Or Schwarzenegger?
1
Schwarzenegger was terrible.
Reagan was terrible from my point of view, but either way, he did have the experience of being the President of the Screen Actors Guild.
Plato realized, as he watched the Athenian Democracy fall into demagoguery and decay, and eventual loss to its less liberal and more brutal neighbor, Spart, that only education would ever make the right people want to lead. He envisioned a utopia (with a strong fascist element, alas) where "rulers" would get nothing personal from ruling--they were entirely public SERVANTS. Power was given to them because it was assumed that their education and the restrictions placed on their lives would never allow them to abuse it. The army was defensive only, and everyone did what was best for the "republic" (community) as a whole. He also said that in the world he (we) lived in, only the worst could be drawn to political power. He saw tyranny as the sad end to liberal democracy--all because of the foolishness of the electorate voting against their own interests for snake-oil salesmen.
Sad.
3
We are sitting in the age of TIY..."Try It Yourself!"
Everything's relative. Not all politicians, even experienced ones, are the sharpest knives in the drawer. You pose the question: would I not go to a doctor for a medical malady? Of course I would. But not all doctors perform the same procedures. They're called specialists for a reason. And it makes a world of difference in getting a good outcome.
And so it is with celebrities, more so than the professional fields you cite. There are some real dumb clucks in showbiz. There are also some real smarties, some with genius, real genius, not Trump genius, IQ's out there. I do not know enough about Cynthia Nixon's politics. The least I can do is give her a listen. I did not know that much about Zephyr Teachout but I learned enough to vote for her in the last New York gubernatorial race. So let's hear her out. You never know.
DD
Manhattan
4
Professional politicians are not necessarily the best option for the people of a county, state, or nation. What is needed is people who can run an organization or enterprise.
1
I agree that politics is not a job for amateurs. DT and the tea party have well demonstrated that. The problem is that almost all experienced politicians have already been bought and sold. Many times. Of course, you can almost always count on the amateurs to sell out also
5
Governing well is about a lot more than earnest passion and reinventing yourself. And we need good governance now more than ever. Having worked in the arena of the sweaty,complex, nittry- gritty workings of "how the sausage is made" in my youth, I came to understand that the best community leaders worthy of votes and trust were the ones that worked their way up from committee people, crawling from the primordial ooze of their communities aand emersed from the beginning in understanding and fighting for the everyday concerns of real people in their real communities. Done well,it is a lot of hard and tedious work, with the devil in the details that neophytes have no clue about and cannot adequately sunstirute for with a magic wand of good intentions.
1
Would you have written the same story if the candidate's name had been Frank? And if the candidate had not been an actor? There are legions of people who have run for office out of conviction that they see wrongs that need to be addressed, or because they believe they can make a difference. And who have not necessarily have had political experience.
In this case it suddenly seems to be very important that this candidate hasn't held public office. So you are judging the candidate before you really know much, if anything, about her and what she wants to do and how she wants to do it. Give her a chance to either succeed or not based on what she does with her campaign, not on your preconceived male notions of what a candidate should be.
3
Guess what? Jesse Ventura was a disaster as governor of Minnesota. Ah-Nold wasn't much better and had to bail out when he was caught having an affair with his housekeeper. Al Franken couldn't keep his pants on, and Trump is also a disaster.
We sure don't seem to have a very good batting average with "outsiders" in public office, male or female. I wonder if anybody can think of an outsider who was successful
The arrogance! To think you'd start a political career at a top executive position. If Ms. Nixon wants a career in politics, let her do what everyone else does. Start at a local level, build a record voters can review. Being a well-intentioned, "advocate" is not all it takes. Geez I hope the Democrats find a decent candidate to run against Cuomo. Nixon is not the one. We have mayors, state and national representatives, even lawyers and other academics are closer to the profile we need.
11
"We Only Care About Experience When a Woman Runs". We've had a lot of men with no political experience running for office: Reagan, Arnold, and a handful of comedians, to name a few. Then there was Barack Obama, arguably a well-intentioned, brilliant man who left his job of community organizing to run, and run he did. So why does the question of relevant experience only come up for women? Less gender bias, please.
16
I seem to recall people touting Hillary Clinton's experience when she ran against Donald Trump. Also when she ran against Barack Obama (who did have governmental experience, though not as much as she did).
No one has experience when they first run for office. The conceit Mr. Bruni is lambasting is the idea that no experience is necessary for the most-difficult and -consequential job on Earth.
Actually, people can get experience even before their first job. It's called education and simulation.
2
President Obama was not just "a Community Organizer," he also served as a US Senator, which is the only experience (other than being a First Lady) that Hillary brought to her 2008 Primary Campaign.
Yeah, but your first job is usually Teacher or Librarian, not Superintendent of Schools.
2
One thing that voters are presumably looking for is candidates who are not beholden to big-money interests or are members of the party establishments which are so beholden. Trump at least seemed to be such a person (although he may be beholden to interests outside the country). There was actually another prominent candidate in the 2016 election who was not beholden and that was Bernie Sanders. As a Senator he had the experience that has been considered sufficient previously. The Times was strongly opposed to him - I don't remember Bruni's attitude, but if he did not speak against Sanders he was an exception among Times personnel. Do you wonder why people are looking for non-establishment candidates?
9
This campaign is over before it even starts. Focusing on the subway doesn't win many votes upstate, does it?
8
Being in a political office is not a profession, it's community service. A law degree isn't required. Experience in office isn't required. Knowing smart people is a boost, knowing how to fund raise is a plus, being passionate about change is the bomb. And I bet Ms. Nixon can negotiate, compromise, and surround herself with the right people.
The Women's March has done a lot of good getting women passionate about standing up, speaking out, and being the change they want to see.
7
It is a profession. And being governor is at least as challenging as being CEO of a multinational corporation. Sorry, you don't go from salesman or factory worker to CEO in one step.
2
Good for you Frank, we need smart, not popular, people in elected positions. Not an Obama supporter myself but I recognized his intellectual ability.
5
Bravo. Good read. See my Cmts: https://www.facebook.com/silvano.ginepri
" What is needed to tell good from bad in a confusing world is the character, the experience, and the balanced judgment from the man on the spot. These will steer him through the difficult cases and help him see what to aim for in life - Aristotle"
2
As always the eloquence of Mr. Bruni's words are only exceeded by their ability to provoke thought and discussion with all levels of critical thought. As I read them I am struck by the two points especially. First, no one person can possibly embody all the necessary elements of successful leadership. Second, the critical element in leadership is the moral element.
Others can fill the first but not the second.
3
We need LEADERS. People with morals, keen intelligence, and chutzpah, who know how to negotiate and when to compromise, who understand all the rules of government and how to navigate the political maze. Who put the welfare of their constituents first, and do not feed from the troughs of tainted money. If we find some of these qualified people, lets elect them for public office.
5
There is a huge difference between the skills needed to be an activist and those needed to be an effective politician. Ms. Nixon may have good intentions, but it would be much better if she had actually accumulated some actual political/legislative/governing experience before seeking this office. We need the Democratic party to come to grips,here as well as nationally, with the fact that they need to promote candidates who can actually appeal to a very diverse constituency. Remember, New York has an Upstate as well as Downstate, and they are very different cultures.
16
It depends on the person and on whom that person picks for assistance. Reagan and Schwarzenegger--a tepid OK; Al Franken--still very much OK; Trump--NO, never, ever. Cynthia Nixon seems to deserve the "depends" consideration. Michael Moore said the Democrats should look for more attractive and capable people, out-doing the Republicans for a change. I agree. Oprah and Matt Damon--step up to the plate!
Read her her Miranda rights and take her away.
6
I don't think that occurred to me at the time. She did play a lawyer. Wonder if her character's name was chosen for that reason.
You conveniently ignore one of the primary reasons that voters are driven to desperation searching for wild-card alternatives to incumbent politicians. Namely - the failure of leaders in the Democratic party to stand for progressive principles when in power. It's not just that we're "celebrity-mad"; we are fed up with the empty choice of Republican politicians who only care about the rich, and Democrats who only pretend to care about the poor and middle class.
7
I share your thoughts completely--except your sop to Cynthia Nixon as a "brilliant actress." Glenn Close is a brilliant actress. And, no, I would not like to see Ms. Close run for president or any other high office. (Though I'd love to have her round for tea!)
9
I agree that modern society has succeeded in giving actors the idea that they are experts in everything by virtue of their celebrity. Apparently playing a Prime Minister or a newspaper publisher in the movies makes one’s political opinions relevant to millions. However; it might be pointed out that the current backlash against experienced politicians has been brought on in large part by the egregious hubris and subsequent failure of “the most experienced person ever to run for President” and her ilk in Congress.
2
The excitement about Cynthia Nixon is about the press's lazy coverage of Cuomo, a conservative democrat who the NY Times and others let get away with being a bully, and worse. Cuomo is a master manipulator and the shame of it is that he has totally manipulated the NY Times.
5
Excellent column in all respects: American anti-intellectualism amplified by electronic egalitarianism and entertainment.
What impresses me is the hubris of the unqualified and the corresponding lack of self-knowledge. Technology is denaturing humankind, and replacing character with causes. Scandals are the inevitable consequence.
Now, what are we going to do about it?
13
I completely agree with you, but would expand on your statement: "Shouldn’t experience count in politics, too?" I would say the same thing about governance, which is slightly different than politics. How government actually works still remains a mystery to Mr. Trump. In a sense, we're lucky on that score.
3
I'm a fan of experience, especially when one starts at the community level and works her way up. But I think it's oversimplifying to say that we're deferring to celebrities because of cynicism and boredom. It's possible that the public likes it when well-spoken women give impassioned speeches that demonstrate an understanding of RIGHT AND WRONG. Our current president is a moral vacuum, and some of us miss feeling like the whole country's not going to hell.
7
Yet, here America is being “led” by a stupid and incompetent baby-man, who can barely form a sentence and cannot or will not read! So, tell me again what problem you have with your assertion that Ms. Nixon’s inexperience should disqualify her from running for Governor? At least we know that Ms. Nixon can teadsnd actually speak in total sentences!!
2
Two wrongs don't make a right.
1
You just answered your own question
I would vote for her.
She would bring in experienced progressives to help guide her.
(Dont compare her to Trump!! He is a Racist, Fascist Liar who hired nothing but
bootlicking lackeys to help destroy democracy.)
3
Where was this article when DJT announced his campaign?
12
How totally mysognostic was Sex and the City? the show which made her the multi millionaire she is today. complict.
4
Trump made it into the White House thanks to a confluence of several and not-unrelated currents in American society: Racism that refused to chafe under self- and socially-imposed repression any longer; a political environment that increasingly negotiated in the manner of Orcs and Men of Tolkiens's Middle Earth; even a dumbing down of what Americans accept as "entertainment." Trump had those three aces up his sleeve and was well-practiced in the art of slipping them into his hand and playing them. He was dealt yet another ace in the form of an opponent whose negatives with many voters outweighed her positives. A pretty unbeatable hand.
Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Jesse Ventura occupied governors' mansions on the basis of name recognition and "star power" more than for any other reason, and did not make utter fools of themselves in their new roles, whether one agreed with their politics or not.
From my perspective, Nixon's biggest potential drawback is the name she shares with Tricky Dick, and (going back to the dumbing down of America's voters) the chance that this will work against her.
I am very liberal and no fan of Cuomo, however the last thing NY needs is an unqualified entertainer as governor. If Trump has proved anything it's that experience matters!
14
Maybe I shouldn't have bought all that gold from William Devane.
3
I would say GO Cynthia!
Sounds like she has some fire in her to not treat this as business as usual.
Corrupt NY has a lot of leaves to turn over.
2
This article focuses on only one side of this election. We have a choice between a politically inexperienced woman and a politically experienced politician who exemplifies most of what we do not like about politicians. Egocentric in the extreme, holding grudges in the extreme, Mr. Cuomo is not someone who should be leading the executive branch of New York State. Should Ms. Nixon be leading the state? Perhaps not, as she is inexperienced. but I'm not sure that experience of the sort Mr. Cuomo brings is much of a virtue. One of these candidates I could not give my vote. The other provides little reason for enthusiasm, so I suppose I'll caste an unenthusiastic vote against the vituperative egoist who loves himself too much.
By the way, Mr. Bruni, casting the net of Mr. Trump over Ms. Nixon was a cheap shot. The problem with Mr. Trump is less in his lack of experience running governments, but in his vituperative, egocentric madness. If he had brought in a few technocrats and he listened to them with a good heart, things might have been quite different. Of course, he cannot listen to other people at all, which is not a function of his lack of experience. Experienced politicians also can be prone to listening only to themselves.
8
It's time to pull that copy of "The Best and the Brightest" off the shelf.
Actually...the title of the book was meant in an ironic way. The best and the brightest led us down the rabbit hole of Vietnam. Intelligence is not a sign of competence.
1
No, no, no Frank, experience or lack thereof only matter if you are a white male. If you are a lesbian woman (Nixon) or a black woman (Winfrey) you get a free pass and suddenly experience doesn't matter! Get with the program man!
1
...and yet it's the white man that holds office.
@dave:
Really? Did you notice that Oprah is not running, in large part because a lot of people told her not to run and she listened, and Nixon is getting a lot of pushback from all kinds of people.
The irony of your statement is that Trump actually got elected, in large part because there were a lot of people out there who voted for him because he was a white male, because he made it okay to be racist and nasty, and because he was running against a woman many people despised, often for garbage reasons dragged up by the right wing blogsphere and such and disredited (by people who otherwise consider Trump a clown). You can't claim Nixon or Oprah got a pass because they were a lesbian or black until they get elected; the reality is Trump in fact got elected despite being an unqualified person, and a lot of that was because he was a white male in a country where a lot of whites think that white men running the country is the only authentic way to run it.
Great op ed. Clearly articulated my thoughts exactly.
4
Let's not confuse Reagan's tenure as California's "acting governor" to that of other political newbies seeking their first seat in elective office. As a native of California since 1944, I have seen a lot in the state's politics. Reagan had nothing to brag about as a governor. He shut down the state-run mental hospitals to save a buck in the budget. He had no interest in where those patients would go or what their futures would hold for them without professional care.
Minnesota tried this flimsy experiment wtih Hulk Hogan. California tried again, in its zeal for mildly-talented actors, with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Whilst driving around in any of his six HumVees, he declared himself pro-environment. As dim bulbs with a history of extra-marital affairs go, his time in the governor's mansion was more like another movie role. At least Reagan was faithful to Nancy; just not to the state's citizens.
So, my advice — as a former CT resident and worker in NYC — to the good people of New York State, do not be fooled by those with no experience in business or politics. Consider, Trump's biz experience was confined to business fraud and multiple bankruptcies. With him in the White House, we are now a country looking more like a ship of fools run by fools and kleptocrats.
The lack of experience leads to the appointment of advisors and officials with the same lack of knowledge. While Ms. Nixon is no Trump, she is just as unqualified for the job of NY's governor.
3
Actually, Minnesota elected Jesse Ventura, but I can see how you might have been confused
Interesting and rich, Frank, as I've often wondered what expertise you had before being named the NYT restaurant critic, a position you held for almost six years! Yes, the stakes are lower, but the principle is the same.
4
Cynthia Nixon is a director as well as an actress. As a director, she would never cast an enthusiastic drama student with no experience as the lead in a Broadway play. It's curious: Nixon's political run was announced shortly after Kim Catrell (Samantha) made it clear there she would not appear in a third "Sex And The City" movie.
2
OK......so Bruni is willing to put up with Cuomo corruption????
Cuomo thinks he can slide into another term as Governor, then slide into the Dem nomination for 2020. Yeah, I don't think so. His politicking and corruption does not go unnoticed outside of NY
3
Here's a question for people who agree with Frank Bruni:
When Hillary Clinton was elected as a US Senator representing the state of New York did she have elected experience?
No. She had no experience. And she had never even lived in NY.
7
Well, Clinton had no elected experience at that point but she was well-versed in policy and in the machinations of government, so the equivalency you're trying to establish seems a bit thin.
5
She had been involved in creating legislation with health care, which is the job of the Senate. She had a lifetime in political campaigns and in the public and non-profit sectors. She had, in other words, much experience with policy, politics and government that prepared her for the job. Ms. Nixon seems to have had some mentorship from people around the New York City Mayor, so that is something, but she has no experience governing a large entity like New York State. If she were running for the state legislature or even the U.S. House or Senate, it would be a different question than running for Governor of a large, economically important state. We had a couple of actor-cum-governors in the state in which I live, and I wouldn't want to repeat either, especially the latter.
3
Guess whose father was a famous governor of NY, got a federal cabinet appointment in his 30s, and ran for governor the first time he tried to hold elected office?
Agreed. Experience is needed except for local representatives. Still, it is a great concern that for so many politicians becomes a lifelong career. We also need fresh blood. It is frightening that people in their 70s are still muscling their way forward.
2
I agree with that experience should count but the real problem is that the expectations have changed but the metrics have not.
So we now want our politicians to more effective influencers than decision makers, that's not a problem - the problem is the political office is an office of influence peddling, policy creation/management, and organizational control.
Solution, lets split the primary offices up to be occupied by a duo (or troika): an influencer & a manager/director.
Without changing the US Constitution, this could be done at the national level. If every one agreed that the presidential candidate is the influencer and that the vice presidential candidate is the one that is expected to actually 'run' the government (who actually sets policy is between them and their supporters) that would be an interim solution.
We all need to recognize that we need to adapt to the new reality to save our 'democracy' and something like this may be a possible solution.
-David S.
While I agree fully with Mr. Burni's strong defense of experts, he is missing a key reason that has led Americans to distrust them: Their troubled e track record over the last 16 years. Experts told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; the Iraqis would treat as liberators; the occupation would pay for itself; tax cuts pay for themselves and spur economic growth; the housing bubble isn't anything to worry about; jobs lost to overseas trade will be replaced with new and better jobs; social media and digitization will make the world a better, more democratic place; and Donald Trump will never become elected president of the United States. I fear we are headed toward a new and even more insidious round of the failure of expertise as People Who Know assure us that robots won't take our jobs and the new digital economy will eventually lift all boats instead of just those of a select elite.
So while I fully agree with Mr. Brunii's lament over amateur candidates like Ms. Nixon, there are rational reasons for their appeal, namely the dramatic failures of the expert class over the last decade and a half.
7
There are many types of experience and many ways to be qualified for leadership. It’s not just political inexperience that disqualifies Donald Trump for the Presidency. It’s his ignorance of every fundamental of governance, history and public policy. It’s his temperament and corrupting self-interest. It’s his disrespect for expertise, his lack of compassion, his instinct to dismantle and destroy rather than build and strengthen our institutions of government. If you assembled a list of the 10 million most qualified Americans for the office, his name wouldn’t be on it.
There are many more paths to elected office than a law degree – or at least, we should regard them with more seriousness. There’s a place in positions of government leadership for caring citizens from every profession – teachers, farmers, doctors and nurses, scientists and engineers, military veterans, artists and even leaders of small and large businesses (though Trump has made their path so much harder now). What matters is that they know the details of public policy that impact us all, that they ally with those who have technical and administrative expertise, that they have an ability to persuade and to inspire public confidence in all the ways that are lacking in our current president.
5
Let's be clear. You can have the "degradation of experience," but you can also have the "experience of degradation." The latter has been the hallmark of the Cuomo administration with his abrupt termination of the Moreland commission, the shady dealings recently leading to conviction of campaign supported, and his reneging on his promise to clean up electoral politics with public funding. There is the fundamental issue of trust and character, and I find Gov. Cuomo ethically-challenged and lacking in both and Ms. Nixon a fresh, honest face untainted by the "degradation of experience" that is the hallmark of New York's politics.
5
Yes, experience matters. I've been an elected official and I got better the longer I did it. On the other hand, I was better on my first day than some others ever got after years of experience. The policies you are proposing matter at least as much as your experience in implementing them.
I'll take the pilot with nine flights over the one with 999 if they're flying to my destination while the other is going somewhere else. I'll take the surgeon with only a few surgeries experience if he or she is planning to remove my ruptured appendix while the more experienced one would do a knee replacement on my knee that's working fine. The difference between the goals and policies that Cuomo has given us, and the ones that Nixon proposes matter at least as much as their differing levels of experience. I've worked for Andrew Cuomo and he has many years of experience in doing the wrong thing effectively.
7
After reading this excellent piece, I was reminded of the plot of De Broca's "King of Hearts" (1966). That film, set late in World War I, involves an English Army private who was once an ornithologist but who was mistaken as an expert at explosives. He's sent into a town the Germans left--but with a delayed-action bomb to booby-trap the town. As the inhabitants have fled, he town's insane asylum gates were left open, and the inmates populate the town and assume the roles of the "normal" inhabitants. It's surreal--much like America has become today.
5
But on the other hand...Arnold Schwarzenegger. A former bodybuilder and a professional actor, he led California as governor and did a good job. Most people who take on high office surround themselves with experts who can help them lead. Strom Thurmond's office was run entirely by his staff in the last few years of his tenure. True desire to make a difference counts.
7
Experience and political skills are no guarantee of success as a chief executive, but the really cannot be discounted in their importance. Having participated in state government on a committee level, I have at least a sense of how things work and what it takes to get anything done. It will be up to Ms Nixon to prove that she has more than just a sense of that, because the skills needed to be an actress and activist -- roles at which she does admirably well -- are not at all the same as leading policy in Albany.
Not that Cuomo doesn't have plenty of reasons to vote against him, mind you. I would just like to see something between completely inexperienced newcomer and party machine as a choice in the primary.
1
Great op-ed Mr. Bruni!
Your concluding sentences--
"Genius in one arena doesn’t guarantee competence in another.
Nor does experience, but it’s the safer bet."
--led me to "most certainly Hillary Clinton was the safer and better bet in 2016!!
7
Yes. In the private sector, management doesn't have to wait 4 years to remove a newly hired screw-up.
11
And then, in the private sector, no one would hire an inexperienced person with no related formal education for a senior management position.
4
Any citizen can run for, and be elected to, and do the job in any Office in our land. Most of our work consists of every-day on the job training (OJT). The most important things are to aim high and to have passion for the job that you seek. Ms. Nixon will make an excellent governor.
4
Yes Frank, you are so much smarter than all the rest of us.
I guess it is not OK to run for governor if you are an "unqualified lesbian" (Nixon); but perfectly OK to run for governor if you are an unqualified billionaire (Pritzker)?
4
Please another media hungry loser. She is over. Go walk with Hillary.
Lincoln's only elective office (before president) was a single term in Congress twenty years before being president. He did run for the senate (sixteen years after his one term in Congress) but lost. The two requirements for president: standing for something with conviction because you think it is right and the ability to argue in a way to convince people with logic, not emotion. Obviously precludes morons.
2
Yes
Alas! The white male cries foul whenever the woman of any color tries to step in!
3
It is because half of all Americans are below average in IQ.
3
Actually it's because half of all Americans are below the median IQ.
wrong again frank
ac is only there cause of his dad
how is that any better than cn?
dont tar her because of trump
your argument is both facile and not original -
too bad the times traded an amazing frank op ed writer for a third rate frank op ed writer
2
Why is a food critic taking on important global political issues? The governorship can be considered an entry level political position. Many governors have been first-time politicians ...of course they were men. Women really should t be so audacious! And BTW there should be more women writers in the editorial section of the Times...why are you two men choosing gwyneth Paltrow’s website and an old article about vaginas as an example of misplaced expertise? Your embedded misogynistic messages are unchecked. Where are the Times editors? Go back to food. I have long felt that your writing is sophomoric.
3
I have a dog in this fight having lived in NY for most of my life. Biggest mistake of my life was coming to NY, the most corrupt state in the US, made more so under Gov. Cuomo & his Albany cronies.
I testified at the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption - an ugly & terrifying experience, judged as an idiot for daring to speak truth to power. It put a bulls eye on my back. Less than a month later, I found myself in what appears to be a RETALIATORY Guardianship proceeding on an unsigned Order to Show Cause over my elderly mother, who has since been "seized" by the State of NY; she is not even a NY resident! My elderly mom has been forced into a "facility" in the Bronx, owned by cronies of the Gov, being beaten and starved. NY is viewed as the Most Corrupt State in the US under Cuomo.
I also testified at another "Corruption Hearing" - the NY Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC658EHWmX8
Andrew Cuomo is surrounded by people like Percoco, whom he considers his "brother". Percoco was just convicted of Federal crimes in a trial by jury. Corruption under Andrew Cuomo has grown exponentially. While he understands the levers of power he doesn't pull them to help the citizens of this state. He is a ruthless man, out for himself. If you cross him, you are in his cross-hairs.
NY can't afford 4 more years of this man. Nixon will surround herself with those who care about the public good.
That's what counts.
6
Personally, I stick with the plumber
Brilliant!
You say 'lack of experience' as if the politicians WITH experience are worth writing home about. All they do is cater to their big money donors. Even my fifth grade students get it, they would work harder for the guy who have them $100 than the guy who gave them $1.
2
Excellent column.
Just curious. Is being a restaurant critic appropriate training for writing opinions about politics?
5
Remember this Frank? Mark Shepherd's less than enthusiastic review of your your work lamenting the "degradation of experience."
"Bruni, to be sure, is a very good writer (not quite “exquisite”), a top-notch journalist, and a smart guy. Like anyone with those attributes, he naturally had some successes. Over time, he nearly mastered the job. He also had a long, painful, unacknowledged apprenticeship, during which much of his criticism was just plain embarrassing..... The fact is, the best critics are normally those who bring a lifetime of experience to the subject matter—something it was simply not possible for Frank Bruni to have had. That’s not the only requirement, but it is an essential one. There is no substitute for it...
When we read The New York Times, we expect not just exquisite writers, but writers who have deep background in the beat they are covering. Although Frank Bruni is a better writer than I am, I never thought that he knew more about restaurants than I did. That’s because his background for the job was the same as mine: he had none....However, I am an amateur. Frank Bruni’s work was marketed as a professional product, and it wasn’t, because he lacked one crucial attribute: expertise.
Funny how when you don't have it, you don't see experience as all that big of a deal.
3
The stakes there are just a wee bit different. The learning curve on puditry is...there doesn't seem to be one, actually, look at the hacks who are constantly wrong and dull and still have job (fun fact: some work at this paper). But Governor? Mess that up, and schools, roads, industries all suffer.
Using your logic, no one would have ever read your first column. Everyone starts somewhere, you make fun of people with no experience. Sometime they bring a fresh perspective as opposed to every New York Times reporter who thinks alike in liberal terms only.
2
Really good column
I wish columnists for the NYT had expertise in their subject matter...
1
This may not make it past the moderators; but Frank Bruni: as a former Food Critic, can you please, perhaps using empirical data- or, if you’d rather-differential calculus- explain how you have become the standard-bearer for Western Culture? I find much of what you write shallow, and increasingly pompous, without the deft stylistic touches of Maureen Dowd or the genius-level analytical turns of Krugman. I actually also disliked your food writing; but this latest was sexist drivel in pseudo-intellectual garb. No, Ms. Nixon is not a plumber; but you are also not a very rigorous writer or thinker. Point?
2
"I'm nobody! Who are you?"
1
Why do people assume that a candidate's sexual orientation doesn't matter? True, there's nothing wrong with being lesbian. But, most people in NY are heterosexual. So, as a candidate, it's reasonable to think Ms. Nixon might not represent the majority on certain issues. This is certainly relevant when considering a candidate's qualifications.
2
Eric from Baltimore, your comment then asserts that being in the religious, racial, and/or IQ majority is what's important?
I agree that governing or related experience is an important qualification. However don't insult Ms Nixon by comparing her to Trump. Yes Trump is inexperienced, but that is not his main problem. He is an ignorant, nasty, dishonest, deceptive, hateful, arrogant, narcissistic bully and these things are even more damaging than his lack of experience.
4
To be governor of NY, it would be best to know a lot about the following: macro and micro economics, housing markets nationally and locally, NY based employers and potential employers, health care policy and NY details, energy issues and NY details, people in state and national governments and politics, immigration policy and NY details, education policy and NY details, environmental policy and NY details, government budgets in great detail including local governments, government pension policies and NY details, transportation policy and NY details, flooding and other climate risks and NY details .... Being governor of NY, or of any state, is a difficult job to do well. People can't pick up the basic knowledge quickly because there is so much to know.
The problem with relying on professional staff to be informed enough to make decisions in the officials stead as needed while he or she "studies up," is that the elected or appointed officials often don't trust the professional staff because they don't have a pre-existing relationship. People would rather trust someone they already know, but a personal friend is unlikely to come into the job with the specific knowledge to make optimal decisions on a timely basis unless the friendship came from a professional context.
Professional government employees and educated policy analysts should be treated with respect and not just dismissed as "bureaucrats". You wouldn't insult your future doctor would you?
2
Remember "experience wanted" (or even "preferred"?). How can anyone ignore the swamp led by the inexperienced tumor in DC? "No experience needed" - only TV ratings - is the new slogan. May we in NY NOT silently endorse this but loudly and clearly voice our objections in November.....clearly, simply, she is not qualified...
1
what does NY get with Cuomo? A social liberal/ econ conservative; a neolib sellout to money; go Nixon
1
You forgot to mention Obama's famously short political resume.
1
Exactly.
No one was saying anything except 'first black president.'
What about Jesse Ventura, another guy with a short resume.
Yes, but Obama had gone to law school and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He also famously worked as a "community organizer". None of these qualifications appear on Ms. Nixon's resume.
He served in two more legislatures than Ms. Nixon.
Terrible actress and will be an even more abysmal politician.....have fun NY
4
The most important point about being good as an elected person, is if one understands that Congress for the last 60 years has failed to tax, for all the legislation they have passed, so the average voter ignores their responsibility, and they have had whatever programs Congress wanted without regard to whether it was good policy, worth the cost, good foreign policies, and whether we could afford it. $21 trillion in debt, a horrendous decision to go into Iraq by George W. Bush that destabilized the whole middle east, left millions dead, millions of refugees at the doorstep of western Europe, and wasted trillions of borrowed money is not good policy, even though Bush had been Governor of Texas. The same can be said for Barack Obama leaving Syria to slowly turn into hell on earth, and ISIS take over Iraq for over a year before he did anything, is not good policy just because he was in the Senate. The sad truth is that people became frustrated, and they put the person with the least character in that office, and the least success at business of almost anyone. The American public has stumbled around now for the last 20 years, and they better start to get it right in the mid terms, or it is pretty much over.
1
Great article.
1
As someone who has worked in government for 20 years (and had a private sector career prior to that for another 15 years), I have to say that government is a WHOLE different animal. I'm appalled that people who wouldn't be hired in even entry level positions in any government (or private sector job) seem to feel that they can run for top level positions simply because of their celebrity or business experience. Neither one prepares anyone to run a government.
If you want to run for a major office, run for some local offices first. Why doesn't Ms Nixon (or Ms Winfrey or any other celebrity) consider doing what Sonny Bono and Clint Eastwood did - run for LOCAL office?! Get some experience with what government does on a local level and work your way up from there! Get some on the ground experience before you try to be the head of it all!! Learn what it IS to be a public servant and how government works - before you try to head for the top position.
8
Hello, Mr Bruni, have you seen the “work” done by those who are “experienced in government?” How can you even ask this question? The effect of unlimited money in campaigns has been voter suppression, gerrymandering and the election of people who all think that only their “way” is the right way, which results in nothing constructive getting accomplished. Experience in governance often means saying much and doing little.
4
While Mr. Bruni makes a valid case for not having someone with the specific experience needed for the job, it seems that experience for a political job these days doesn't mean much either. How do we find people whose character and wisdom bolster their expertise? This is what we need to work on as a nation.
1
governing is a learned skill; ms. nixon's heart may be in the right place regarding making state government better, but, with little or no daily experience in governing, she would be lost, misled, and a disaster as the ny state govenor in albany. imagine gov. cuomo wouldn't jettison his position to audition for a role against jeremy irons.........
In a time when people scarcely take the time to consume serious journalism and instead freely admit to getting their "news" from social media, it is hardly surprising that our country is beleaguered by an uninformed electorate that chooses its candidates that the most people within their particular echo chamber "like", "follow" or otherwise mindlessly ascribe to. In this environment, brand recognition is vitally more important than competence or substantive knowledge of the job a particular candidate seeks. Whether it is Trump, Nixon, Oprah or Kim Kardashian, we are nation belittled by our inability to distinguish quality from fame.
4
I developed a great regard for Ms. Nixon from her career on the stage, which takes enormous discipline and intelligence that I think would translate to politics. I wish I could vote for her.
2
No, Frank, you're conflating two very different things.
Surgeons, pilots and teachers have very specific training to do very specific work. Sure, I don't want an amateur replacing my heart valve or flying my granddaughter for a visit.
But elected office is about citizen control of our democracy. The required experience is to be fully alive, to understand the principles of our democratic republic, to have lived a life of integrity, and to care deeply about fellow citizens. Any one of us can become familiar with the mechanisms of government. In fact, it is the experienced politicians who have brought us to an ethical standstill.
Using Donald Trump as an example of inexperience at work is irrelevant. He is disqualified by his lack of any of the decency, curiosity and ethical values that should be prerequisites.
I have no opinion about Nixon, but reject your premise.
7
I had no experience when I was hired for my first teaching job.
I learned on the job and got really good at it, while 4.0 Rhodes Scholars couldn't last 5 months in the schools I taught.
2
You're right, Jay, and I was wrong to include teaching. I led a school for 19 years and some of the worst teachers were the most experienced. Teaching requires love of children, openness to learn with them and deep commitment. Thanks for correcting me.
1
As a career government employee, I wholeheartedly agree with Frank Bruni. It's the corollary to " I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV". While many, particularly those in any segment of entertainment, can manage a slick PR campaign and media use, it does not take the place of knowing how things work.How government works, management, structure, rules, requirements and the intertwining of funds and purposes are as much a specific skill as cinematography, or media reporting. It isn't a matter of talent-it's a matter of skill development and learned expertise. Otherwise you end up with nothing done, potentially losing millions of dollars in public funds and actually having a negative impact on the very individuals you think you are helping.
15
‘Experience’ brought us Iraq, and the ‘system’ offers poor financial services regulation, extortionate C-suite compensation, a broken legal system, a health care system that is shocking in its cost and care delivery, oligopolies, a political system that does not work well in elections, particularly primaries, a legislative system that is a corrupt joke. And we are ‘great’ ? ‘Out of the box’ is the ONLY road towards progress. Character and intelligence can absorb the expertise available. The concern over lack of experience is misplaced. It is lack of good character and caring intelligence...
8
“Experience” did not bring us the war in Iraq. Arrogance, ideology, greed, and a lot of lies did.
The kinds of experience someone brings to a job, or the mix of experiences present in a functioning team, certainly matter, and “experienced” people can come to different conclusions or act differently. But zero experience is a liability, not an asset. The arrogance, ideology, greed, lies, PLUS profound and willful ignorance of Trump and company may very well result in something much worse than Iraq. I don’t look forward to finding out.
I agree with the premise of this article and many of the respondents who wonder why the citizens of this country have so little respect for knowledge or experience. But I would add teaching to government in the category of professions where amateurs are valued more than professionals. For years, recent graduates feom Ivy League schools with virtually no training in classrooms have been preferred over experienced teachers.
3
Telling readers of the NYT that they would prefer experience over ungifted amateurishness is a little odd. Whisper it not, FB, shout it from the heavens, get it into the script of The View or of the revived Roseanne.
2
The democrats should not even consider celebrities and has beens for any political office. They should choose progressive experience politicians for office. They should leave the irreligious fanatics, racists, NRA supporters, and people who are in the pocket of the 1% to the republicans. The following senators and governors would make excellent democratic candidates for President in 2020: Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Brian Schatz, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, Christopher Murphy, John Hickenlooper, and Jay Inslee.
4
Two more words: Adam Schiff!
2
@DAVID J KRUPP: What makes you so sure the American people want another "progressive" in the WH? First progressive was Woodrow Wilson, an egregious white supremacist and it was the Democratic Party which dominated the south for generations before and after the Civil War and supported the system of separate but equal: Jim Crow. Blumenthal, who comes on as a censorious high school asst. principal, was caught being deceitful about his "service" in VN. He's a fibber! The rest of the folk you mention are unknown to the majority of Americans, and have as much charisma as the late Abe Beame, who, by the way was a good bloke on a personal level, likeable.Media and American people have gotten used to being governed by someone whose magnetism is through the roof! All of the networks are obsessed with him,and to have 1 of the relative nobodies you mention as President would be a letdown. I am not a gun owner, despise thought of hunting innocent animals and those who do, but observe that in the uproar over school shootings it is government on all levels that should be held responsible. not the NRA! Wake up and smell the coffee!
"Cynthia Nixon and the Degradation of Experience"
Shouldn't it be "...the Denigration of Experience"?
4
Nixon is a complete self righteous clown. Despite whatever positions I agree with her on. She is a poor and paltry opposition to the despot that is Andrew Cuomo. Nixon knows nothing, nothing about the state of NY and what people in Steuben , Oneida , Lewis or Erie county actually value and care about. This is an excercise in her narrow minded ego. No one should vote for her. She represents everything that is wrong with political ambition in this country. I don’t care that you’re gay. I don’t care that you think the highest per pupil funded state in the US needs more money to magically solve all the social and family problems that tax payers aren’t responsible for. Nixon will fail and fail abysmally and we will be left with more corrupt Cuomo. NY state needs a revolution .
3
Nixon played a smart lawyer on TV, so people think she is a smart lawyer instead of an actress.
Trump played a rich man on TV, and people think he is a rich man instead of a bankrupt money launderer.
15
I have heard from kids my stepson's age, that one doesn't need to know anything, one just should have self confidence and do it. Brashly own the world. "That is what Trump does," one told me. "Just give him a chance and he can do the company's accounting," another tweeted about someone who finished OSU accounting with little understanding or interest in what he learned. I said that the integrity of the company was on the line if there were bad accounting mistakes, but he couldn't understand my answer. So, too, with the applause for those who bravely say that they want a job as governor, as president and we must hope that they are surrounded by career people who understand the job and to whom they listen. This is because we have undervalued education in our society, undercut those with knowledge and have applauded ignorance. We are reaping what we sowed and we best hope we have a democratic system when we are finished.
8
Unlike the incumbent, Ms Nixon was not the child of a previous governor
- born on third base.
2
I don't like Andrew Cuomo at all, but that is ridiculously unfair. Who was running his father's campaigns at age 19? Who was his chief of staff? Who hard-knuclled Albany pols twice his age, getting them to bend to his father's will? Who was willing to play "bad cop" while the media annointed his father as Saint Mario? Who left Albany to build housing for the homeless? Who parlayed a 1992 Clinton endorsement into an 8-year stint as HUD secretary?
There are a lot of things to legitimately dislike about Cuomo: his personality, venality, dumb grudge with de Blasio, tactics double-dealing, cozyong with the GOP and IDC, and casual acceptance of Albany's sleazy corruption. But to say he breezed into his role as the son of privilege is just wrong.
1
This is a race to ever greater depths of stupidity in corrupt two party dereliction.
Democrats dumbed down progressivism by embracing slick Willie.
So Republican dumbed down conservatism by embracing Newt Gingrich.
To which Democrats responded by dumbing down with wooden Gore, to which Republicans responded by dumbing down from arrogant Gingrich to arrogant and inept Bush Jr..
Democrats then reacted by dumbing down from wooden Gore to all-talk-no-action Obama, who was at least better than Mrs Slick Willie, who was roughly like her husband minus the slickness, but with extras doses of prevarication, and reduced levels of experience. Only to then dumb down still further 8 years later by nominating Mrs. Slick anyway, out of sheer lack of backbones and vision, except for "a woman, any woman, for president except all the other women except this one."
To which Republicans responded by bouncing off the high dive, directly towards the bottom of the pool, past the arrogant and dishonest Cruz, the lame Kasich, the naively hypocritical Rubio, and the insipid brother Bush, to plumb the deepest reaches of arrogance, ignorance and motor mouth dishonesty.
And no excuse is too ridiculous if it helps the clowns of this decrepit duopoly circus to better deny their decades of down-dumbing and wrecking of American politics.
3
If we ever get a politician with experience it is only by chance. We elect people with personalities we can relate to. Trump was not the first inexperienced politician to hold a high office. Remember Jesse Ventura? We fear politicians who acquire too much experience, so people regard term limits as a good thing.
3
In what profession, other than politics, is experience considered a liability? We already have a way to limit terms; it's called voting.
1
And we shouldn't have allowed presidents to blow up women and children and start wars and coups unilaterally without the approval of Congress. But there's Obama, not rotting in a cell and gentrifying his old stomping grounds.
Be consistent.
Nixon’s fictional character Miranda, from that awful tv show Sex and the City has more experience and business running for office than Nixon herself. Good luck with that NY.
2
When talking about brain surgeons and plumbers ... yeah, experience matters. But when talking politics, it's not all that clear. Lets see here
Obama, 1 term as senator, then president
Bush, governor, then president
Reagan, governor then president
Carter, governor then president
Obviously all a bunch of losers and failed presidents...
I would say that things are a bit more nuanced than Mr. Bruni seems to think.
3
i say if she wins, give her a chance. If people aren't happy with how things are going, shouldn't we naturally want to rock the status quo?
That's what Ventura did in MN and Arnold in CA.
1
Obama was a constitutional law professor and community organizer before he ran for office. Both positions provide an understanding of politics and government.
1
Dear Mr. Bruni:
I love you and and I love you even more for this column.
I've said this from the beginning, and I know I'm not in the minority.
THANK YOU for this -- and thank you for every delicious morsel you write.
I only hope she's doing this, not because she thinks she's qualified, but more, because she wants to sway Mr. Cuomo more to the left. We can only hope. Because even she knows she is incredibly unqualified for this job.
3
Who says Cynthia Nixon has no political experience? She worked on her father's campaign in "Tanner 88." So there!
"Theory went to swim...but it drowned for lack of practice". That is Cuomo's advantage over Nixon's. Too bad, given that fresh blood in a mafia-like environment where political power is used and abused at will, would be welcome.
Just reaping the dividends after 60 years of dumbing down America...
I think of all the men (yes, men) in Congress--who was a doctor first, or a lawyer, or a vet, or a businessman--did all of them go out and work their ways up through the lower levels of government to the top before they chose to run? Are those sorts of experience inherently better than Ms. Nixon's? She is a successful actress who has negotiated and run a successful business, ie, her own career. I say she can and should at least be considered before she is written off as a novice with nothing to offer.
Secondly, I have to point out that it is a false equivalency to consider Trump's inexperience and its effect on his presidency when discussing Ms. Nixon's candidacy. Trump is an idiot with no moral compass and an agenda of driving up his own personal wealth at any cost. Ms. Nixon, at the very least, appears to have a decent brain and character.
1
Being experienced is not a guarantee that someone would make a great leader like a governor. Similarly, as we have seen in Trump, lacking in experience and knowledge has undermined his presidency, making him a moron when he flatly refuses to think he has anything to learn.
The electorate needs to put someone like Ms. Nixon under the most exacting microscope to reveal her to us. One thing we failed at recognizing in Trump was the liability of his experience. That being his emotions, that have interfered with his ability to learn new skills on the job. Some people rise to the occasion in what in the corporate setting is referred to when an inexperienced employee is given a "stretch project" that would provide a learning curve. Our problem, as voters, is about time. Do we have the time to wait for someone to learn the job while we wait for the results of that on the job training?
2
I love that Democrats advance one idea for decades and then once it comes to fruition they complain about it. They lament how stupid it is that Americans would act that way. Democrats/socialists told us for decades how great socialism is and we should be friends with the Russians. Remember, Obama's hot mic moment? Democrats claim that everyone should vote (which includes the ignorant and ill-prepared). Democrats rant about the abuses of the police and then they claim criticizing a few of the top officials at FBI means you are destroying America. Remember, the criticisms of the FBI about Dr. King?
Here's a suggestion, if you are stupid or ignorant enough to be a Democrat, actually study history. Realize that while some ideas suggested by Dems sound nice they are actually a nightmare (i.e. universal healthcare). The Founding Fathers were right about most things (obviously not advocating slavery and men like Franklin opposed it). Citizens need to be self-reliant, not rely on the government save a few areas like national security.
Trump's problem is not that he is inexperienced. His problem is that he is a malignant narcissist. You might as well say that no man should run because trump is a man and look what a dumpster fire electing a man turned into.
If you want to argue that we should not elect another sociopathic carnival barker to high office, I would agree, but this has nothing to do with Ms. Nixon.
1
How much experience did Obama have in governing? None. He had been part of electoral politics but not governing. Obama is smart. He is educated and respected by his peers at Harvard and the University of Chicago. He could see America's problems especially for non whites. And he was articulate. Nixon doesn’t have Obama’s educational CV. But she is smart and articulate. As we can see from Trump, advisors and appointees are critical to the success of an administration. I worked in Texas government when Ann Richards was elected governor. I admired Ann Richards but her appointees were awful. They were completely anti-business. Back then so was I. But I now realize that finding a balance between allowing business to operate and regulating harmful behavior is very difficult and takes more finesse and skill than most recognize. Richards was a one term governor. She never found that balance. Question is whether Nixon aspires to that balance and wants to find the people to implement necessary change.
1
CA had Bedtime for Bonzo and the Terminator for governor. Why can’t New York have Miranda? She’ll have better shoes!
2
And what are Cuomo's qualifications? Aside from being the 'son of', I see none. He's presided over one of the most corrupt state governments. Has he cleaned house? No. The New York City transport fiasco is all his to own. He forgets that most of his tax money comes from this city. Lets give Cynthia Nixon a chance.
4
Isn't she the daughter of Richard Nixon? That has to count for something.
1
That's funny. No, the Richard Nixon daughers are Julie Nixon Eisenhower and Tricia Nixon Cox.
2
Politics is a public relationship to the voters. Public communication requires cultural growth. If voters are turning to inexperienced politicians it’s because the professional culture of politicians has diverged too far from the culture of the public it is institutionally obligated to relate to. These unending attempts to shame the public are the height of arrogance and proof of how deeply the nature of our political system has been misunderstood by an entitled professional class who believe they are owed loyalty because they possess innate superiority of comprehension. The longer this demeaning line or argumentation is kept alive by self-interested professionals reciting worn out dogmas the longer the public will turn to idiots as a show of protest.
1
A modern politician seems to be the ultimate Darwinian example of egotistical fitness and disregard for lesser beings, humans included.
Good point Miguel. Let me add that we take the worst aspects of human psychopathology, wrap them up into a single personality and job description "politician" and worse, the sycophants who run them), a job title which requires some sociopathy, high level defenses and a goodly amount of projection, hand over our money and emotions, and then wonder why things don't ever get better unless you are part of the identity politics groups that will allow these empty suits to prosper both in and out of office.
The only experience you need to be a politician in the U.S. the ability to lie and smile at the same time.
1
Bruni had nothing to say when the Desperate Dems suddenly began to taut Oprah as POTUS material. What's wrong with Ms. Nixon? Look at the great job done by The Terminator. Maybe it is what Albany needs.
1
Shouldn't we also mention Venture, Schwarzenegger, Franken, Eastwood, Fred Thompson, Sonny Bono, and Jerry Springer when discussing this topic? Just saying.
1
why no! they are men!
1
Ventura (FIFY) and Schwarzenegger are the only ones who were Governors, and neither was successful. He should have mentioned them, yes, but as cautionary tales. The others on your list all did things that were very different: Thompson and Springer were politicians before they were celebrities. Eastwood and Bono took on much smaller jobs in the small communities in which they lived and were familiar.--Mayor of Carmel or Palm Springs is nothing like the Governor of New York, those jobs are as different as community theater is to Broadway. Franken entered the Senate, which is not an executive position, after years of being steeped in the issues by hosting a political show and writing political books and by being active in state politics. A Mayorship or the Senate might be a reasonable entree for Ms. Nixon, Governor is not.
This is an example of misogyny. It reeks of it. Criticizing a woman for her ambition is one of the misogynists buzz phrases meant to like sound credible critique, but with the purpose of undermining based on gender.
3
That is a youthful one trick pony comment if I ever heard one.
1
Jack Lessenberry, political commentator for Michigan Public Radio, observed last summer that “During my career as a journalist, I’ve learned that there are two things people think they can do without any training whatsoever: Start a restaurant, and run for high political office, usually governor.”
http://michiganradio.org/post/another-brilliant-self-made-millionaire-no...
I did a search of "Frank Bruni" "Donald Trump" "inexperience" and came up with nothing. For all of his criticisms of Mr. Trump, it seems Mr. Bruni only wants to decry lack of approved experience when it comes to women running for office (or talking about home health tips). I'm hoping I missed something. Otherwise, this column smacks of misogyny.
4
This is a grandstanding move by a mediocre actress who perceives the governorship as a series of media ops (witness cretin in the White House) where all she has to do is hire a stylist, pay a publicist, corral some briefing book zombies, memorize her lines and prepare for her close-ups. That being the case, Christine Quinn co-opted a worthy cause as the CEO of a social service agency for homeless women and their children - and possibly keeping a bona fide social worker or other dedicated credentialed individual from getting the job - then turned it in to a platform for her own grandstanding, posturing and bloviating. She has absolutely no right at all to be pointing the camera, uh, finger anyone else.
In this current environment og ever greater absurdities Nixon fits right in. I’m sure in the 2018 elections an ever increasing numbers of clowns will feel fit for elected office, if trumpf’s current appointments let us live to see ekection day.
Coming from California I laud your viewpoint. First we had Reagan then we had Arnold. As if fame alone qualifies one to do anything, other than act. Enough already!
Well, yeah, but what am I going to do if the experienced pilot refuses to take me to my destination? What if I can't afford the experienced physician? And just how much should I value the experience of politicians who sold out America to foreign interests?
Donald Trump in the White House is entirely the fault of the establishment politicians.
As for Cynthia Nixon, her experience, or lack thereof, is of no interest to me. I will be voting against her because she is an old school Stalinist.
I would like to know what part DeBlasio played in Nixon’s decision to run.
What is the alternative? One only needs to read the NY Times to know that a Cumo staff members have been convicted of a crimes. The leaders of the Democrats and Republicans have been convicted of crimes. Albany needs a change.
2
Mr. Bruni, kudos! It is frightening that "these people" ,so arrogant in their ignorance,and disrespectful of the true diligence that is required. From supposedly successful business people,without a lick of experience in politics and government, to popular talk show "personalities" that have become relevant to even be mentioned for higher important offices is a pathetic commentary on our collective psyches. In 2008, I was a bit wary of of our future President's lack of time served in the Senate but now, our country seems to be willing to consider anyone who claims to have "it". We have little respect for true statesmen, true politicians, and those with truly great intellect. We are doomed.
Frank you are absolutely correct! I guess some of us haven't learned from Trump and his merry band of incompetent managers. If Nixon wants to be governor, drop the acting gig and work full time in government. She can start at the local level and take night classes in public administration.
brilliant actress? she's ok. she's an ok actress but she has a lot of experience acting. i think she would be less than ok as a Governor. she is also extremely, extremely wealthy and her single mother childhood of 50 years ago does not erase the fact that she lives in a world of privilege so extreme that she simply cannot relate to the average new Yorker. Behind every subway she's taken is a private jet that flew her to Cannes. I'm sick of famous people running for office because sycophants told them they had really good ideas. But when regular people run you get even worse options like that guy in DC who thinks the Rothschild control the weather.
1
Thanks for this. Here in Germany, people still can't fathom how Trump was even permitted to run for POTUS.
1
Ms. Nixon's arrogance is breathtaking. We know Trump doesn't know any better, but she should.
1
An example of the danger of choosing celebrity over experience is on full display in Canada where Kardashian Age boy wonder Justin Trudeau has become a laughing stock. North America has never had weaker leadership than right now as Putin and Xi Jingping tighten their dictatorships and become emboldened as they look across the chessboard and see the likes of Trump and Trudeau. The press is largely to blame for giving disproportionate attention to candidates who once would have been ignored or dismissed as a joke. I'm hoping to hear very little further about Ms. Nixon in the New York Times.
Back of Frank. Degradation does not belong in the same sentence as Cynthia Nixon. This is a serious woman who wants to apply herself to make the world better and unless you need a license to run for governor your argument fails badly. There are not rules in this case that she is braking or that she is subverting. So surprising to see how upset you are by this. And disappointed by your perspective. It feels very very sexist. Have you written anything so strong and used that word degradation in the same sentence as Trump?
1
Really interesting that Bruni wrote this: "And doesn’t excitement about Winfrey for president or Nixon for governor have some relationship to disdain for professors who peddle inconvenient truths?"
Cuomo's previous challenger -- the formidable Zephyr Teachout -- was a professor peddling inconvenient truths about his tenure. Now, she's Nixon's campaign treasurer. Hold your disdain, Mr. Bruni, for those who deserve it.
1
"So why the romance with candidates who have never done a stitch of government work before?"
This is a really important question, Mr. Bruni, let me take a crack at it.
You see, politicians who've been around a while can be seasoned compromisers, or they can also become stewards of inertia. Think of the Deep South Dixiecrats, Democrats, during the long years of their support for segregation, anti-civil rights legislation, and support for anti-black violence.
The, look at a President like Harry Truman, a haberdasher from Missouri, who served at the local level but had no real national experience. He turned out to be quite a leader, although the eggheads at the Times back in the day preferred their fellow intellectual Adlai Stevenson.
that's what makes politics so exciting and refreshing. Even on Broadway, you can have "seasoned" actors performing a musical about the founding fathers, and then you can have "Hamilton." Which one would you pay thousands to see?
So, while surgeons and pilots are justifiably sought for their experience, politicians are often sought for their "newness" which is akin to being "born again," without the crust of the eternal corrupter; power.
So don't "degrade" Cynthia for her virginity. I know you want to see Andy run fro President in 2020, but I would prefer almost anyone else who did not come with a "legacy."
Tried that with Hillary, and that didn't work out so well.
2
'Nixon, a brilliant actress best known for the HBO series “Sex and the City,”'
Are you kidding me?
If there was ever an oxymoron, this is it.
1
No matter how fun Ms. Nixon was to watch on shows like Sex and the City, her initiative is bad for New York State and frankly does not reflect well on the Democratic Party.
1
The only thing worse than appointing unqualified people to run things (Carson, Scaramucci,etc.) is to hire people with credentials and past experience who are dangerous. Like John Bolton to be National Security Advisor unless you like hints of war or actual war on many fronts...take your pick of those wars he recommended...Iran, Syria, North Korea....enough?
1
Hopefully, her candidacy will go nowhere. She's totally unqualified - just like Trump.
1
Apparently the writers of the Constitution let that being 35 years old was all you needed be President. No experience necessary.
1
Good Grief, I've spend many years as an engineer. I thought maybe I could give it up and be an economic journalist for The New York Times!
1
Possibly, Mr. Bruni, you should have done a little more preparation yourself before writing this, basically, pro-Cuomo hatchet job. Ms. Nixon has been involved in politics, particularly the politics of public education, long before she became part of the De Blasio campaign which gave her the kind of experience that, say, someone like you does not have of the political workings of NY. To compare an intelligent, competent, knowledgeable politically committed non-professional politician to Donald Trump is grotesque to say the least. As a public school teacher, I long for someone who knows and cares about pubic education to have some political power. Indeed, I have read at least one article by you attacking teachers and teachers' unions and I would like to know exactly how many years of teaching experience you have to pontificate so assuredly. It seems to me, that your very job is to write about things about which you have no experience. Physician, heal thyself. Please.
1
But we Hunter High School girls were taught that we could do anything!
(Class of 1965)
1
I sense an underlying sexism in this article that the author might not truly understand.
4
AGREED!
1
Pardon, but as an GYN, I am still stuck at the line about Paltrow and steaming techniques.
Great piece.
Great piece; thank you.
Politicians ARE actors. Give me a break.
2
Tell her to play a governor in a movie first to get some idea of the scenery.
I think once again, the NYT misses the point. I certainly agree with the joke from Back to the Future where time-traveller Marty tells Professor Brown that Ronald Reagan is president. The reaction is priceless: "The actor? Who's Secretary of State, Jack Benny?"
The problem is that expertise in politics is widely presumed to be expertise in corruption as well. Everyone is seen to be on the dole. Here is shocking news: democracy has been corrupted by the donor class and that is why we have the worst income inequality in decades and each college graduating class has diminishing prospects over the last.
Let's face facts: both Sanders and Trump appealled to those sick of government we could no longer claim as ours. The Trump outcome should have been predictable and speaks to the level of disgust. Stupid is as stupid does.
The bigger conflict for the soul of politics was with the Democrats. I had serious doubts as to how effective a Sanders Administration would be, even with his experience. Would he invite pushback? I voted for him anyway out of disgust with the Clintons and their coddling of Wall Street and Rubin/Summers (bad expertise), their predeliction for plutocrat money and their takeover of the DNC with the concomitant suppression of the will of the voters. Hillary had all the experience one could have asked for and we were so overdue for a woman president. But she decided decades ago to go the way of the GOP and accepted winning office meant taking plutocrats' money.
As a mother of a teenager getting ready to go off college, this lack of respect for deep knowledge and expertise infuriates me. Students and their families bankrupt themselves in the name of higher education. For what? To have the Confederacy of Dunces led by willfully ignorant men and women -- Trump, Devos, Carson, Perry et. al.-- lead this country into a pit. Is the expense of college worth the financial sacrifice when the President of the United States speaks at fourth-grade level? Depressing.
The Moreland commission. Percoco.
I'm not thrilled at the idea of Cynthia Nixon as governor, but I'm not happy with Cuomo's circle of corruption.
3
Starting at a lower level and working hard while gaining experience and moving upward, is not what very rich celebrities want to lower themselves to do. To too many people being very rich entitles one to start at the top. Very bad idea!
Some people today, for completely understandable reasons, are attracted by what they see at smart, adaptable, compassionate people who do not arrive in office with a trunkful of finical obligations to large donors who paid to put them in office. Obligations to teacher’s unions are seen to be as problematic as obligations to the Koch brothers.
So, yes, it would be swell to have trained, experienced, honest, unencumbered service-oriented candidates to vote for. But, George Mitchell cannot be everyone’s governor.
1
It wish Zephyr Teachout would step out in the public arena again. Nixon and politically vocal celebrities like her, would serve us better by endorsing, advocating and obtaining real govt/management experience. Have we learned nothing from the tragedy and hubris of Trump.
6
I understand Mr Bruni's point but I am inclined to disagree.
Politics is only incomprehensibly complicated because of the eternal maneuvering, posturing, leveraging, venality, greed, gargantuan egos, power grabs, and all around nonsense involved. It is not actually brain surgery. It is supposed to be simply executing the will of the people in order to run our country. Does Bruni forget that being governor is being a public servant?
Is he talking about preferring an experienced, master maneuverer like Frank Underwood? (Admittedly a caricature.)
By most measures, Schwarzenegger was a decent governor, and was re-elected. Say what you want about Reagan, but he was successful at what he was trying to do.
If Ms Nixon has the smarts and the heart, then I say more power to her.
Bruni is just preaching another brand of elitism.
5
In that case, please explain with a basic pie chart the history of nuclear non-proliferation treaties and the complex, multilateral legal machinery in place to try to prevent an all-out nuclear war.
After all, it can't possibly be complicated enough to require a subject matter expert to explain it, right?
Nick, you left out a guy named Obama, who was a state legislator of little renown and briefly a US senator, although he spent most of that time running for President. What experience did he have to be President?
2
I love her. She's a great actress. But God I'm sick of amateur hour politics. I'd like someone with solid State Government experience please. Isn't our national experiment with amateur hour enough?
3
Bravo. Thank you for risking attack by the PC police. As a liberal political science professor i am so happy to see someone stating exactly what i have been saying in a much smaller forum. The media, by uncritically supporting Nixon and Oprah, are repeating their 2016 mistake of attacking Clinton in the name of (false) equivalence. Thank you for adding a mature voice to the conversation.
4
Give me experience over celebrity, any day. A person can be issues-oriented, appeal to that particular group who have a dog in that particular fight, yet be incompetent in every other way there is to comprehend the array of other issues facing the nation and the world. Platitudes about those other issues just don’t work, ever, in any government position.
Obama came into the Presidency with 10 years of experience in the Illinois Senate under his belt, plus years of legal training and teaching Constitutional Law. I want another one of those, please. Instead, we have a chaos merchant who probably has to Velcro his shoes. Never again. No more clowns, and no more identity-focused celebrities who have no concept of how our nation actually works, much less how world politics work. Having a firm grasp of how a single Amendment works doesn’t a Constitutional scholar make. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In this case, those who lack experience should get it before they attempt to make history.
3
One thing I know for sure; a lot of movie actors are actually WAY smarter than our politicians!
2
While all valid, wish you explored more of WHY NOW? The revelation of the moral and financial hypocrisy of our institutions (priests, boy scouts, politicians, wall street) has left people distrustful of experts.
It's especially odd to see a Democrat degrading experience. If you're a Republican, and your overall philosophy is the less government, the better, then I can at least see the logic of preferring someone who hasn't been a cog in the evil machine. But if you actually think government can be a force for good in the world, then that rationale is gone; you'd want someone who knows how to work it.
2
Yes, and God forbid we listened to Alexander Hamilton or James Madison in 1776 (20ish and 25, respectively).
1
Well said... We need term limits, and maybe votes weighted toward our younger people instead of old curmudgeons showing up steadily at the polls to vote for Second Amendment ‘rights’ that do not exist... and delaying embracing a more modern society that does not slaughter its own children...
1
Perhaps the willingness to consider a celebrity comes from the fact that politicians on both sides have been ACTING as if they care, spending lots of money, soaking up the limelight, partying with lobbyists, hiring publicists, and yet nothing changes for the average American.
Politicians act like celebrities...so perhaps celebrities, who've been there, done that, can act like public servants.
1
With major rot spreading throughout practically every major & minor institution in our lives, from the very top down to the insignificant, is it any wonder that people are searching for someone, anyone to do these jobs ? They think "How could they perform worse" ? At least there is a chance for a smidgen of honesty or integrity or motivation besides the almighty Dollar.
The emperor has no clothes & they have feet of clay. Nothing new in the human condition, but it is rampant now. The pettiness, the greed, the lust for "power" - at seemingly every level of life. It has seeped into many lives from childhood on to old age and every age between.
Look at some of these so-called politicians. Even our so-called president. Most of them, very old and have achieved almost everything you can. Wealth, privilege, power. And still it is not enough. It doesn't seem it will be enough for them no matter how long they live and how much they amass. And it has filtered down through all facets of society - I want it NOW. If I can't get it NOW - I'm going to take it.
So Mr. Bruni, that is a bit of why folks are willing to let someone like Ms. Nixon give it a go. What could be worse they figure ? And you, are wrong for dissing her about lack of qualifications. Like I said -how could things be much worse considering what we've already gotten ?
2
"Experience" also informs politicians where the money is to be had and leads to corruption. Cuomo's reign shows what such experience can lead to. If he didn't know about all the corruption around him, then he was incredibly inept. What we need is an honest person with good instincts who will hire honest competent managers. I, for one, am willing to give Ms. Nixon my vote.
2
The American public has failed the test of democracy. To remain vital, citizens must be responsible and educated. We are not. America's decline is now well underway and the culprit is the narcissism and disregard of facts and science that is perfectly embodied by Trump.
I often rant about Trump chumps and their gullibility and their bigotry. But that same persona exists on the left. Anti-vaxxers anyone? Cynthia Nixon supporters out there?
Doesn't much matter at this point. John Bolton will have Trump's ear. Word is that he's going to get rid of Kelly and operate without a chief of staff. We're all going to die, sooner than later.
1
”Cuomo deserves fierce opposition,” Mr. Bruni writes. So what is stopping an “experienced” politician from opposing him? Ms. Nixon deserves credit for her courage while others do nothing. She doesn’t deserve to be made Exhibit A for a piece about the denigration of experience, when there are so many better examples.
1
The Goldilocks (porridge not too hot not too cold just perfect) theory of training for 'Politicians';
get a good University indoctrination - hard to deny that will not be of a left wing bias if 95% approx' of the Academics (Harvard Study) are of a leftist viewpoint, followed by apprenticeship under senior swamp life long tenants, with gut wrenching legerdemain tendencies. This notion of being 'trained' is past its sell by date. The populace is sick and tired of 'trained' politicians and the fault lies in the very 'training' that is advocated like some beacon in this article.
1
You conflate Liberals with Celebrity Mr. Bruni. When providing examples of celebrity advice, why pick on the women in a degrading fashion? Plenty of male celebrities and other business men with no prior government experience run for office all across America. A Wrestler. An Action Star. I don't know how you expect to be taken seriously by throwing out derogatory comments about women who are celebrities -- and mentioning Paltrow was just to get attention and use a woman's body part in your column. Such a bad comparison. Heard of Stereotyping? Let Nixon run, maybe she can bring some discussion to issues that have been left out of the public eye. It is her chance to put herself out there and bring attention to viewpoints other than Cuomos. Good for her.
2
Alec Baldwin may not be qualified to run for mayor, but he sure has a rare combination of skills---he's a multi award winning actor, plus a superbly comical satirist of Trump mannerisms on SNL, plus a speaker at events for the anti Trump resistance--- and---he announces the New York Philharmonic weekly classical concerts on WQXR radio. All this must qualify him for something!
So why the romance with candidates who have never done a stitch of government work before?
Let me give you the answer. Ivory Tower Ph. D's from the Ivy League working hand in hand with our elected officials that got us into Iraq, overpaid government workers fat retirement benefits along with early retirement (firemen and policemen), metro system way in debt, New York Port Authority, etc.
2
I don’t see how one’s celebrity past makes a difference. Ronald Reagan, loathsome as Cuomo, was a two term president and Hollywood actor, and former governor of the 6th largest economy in the world. The Terminator was elected twice to lead that very same powerhouse economy. Obama was ridiculed by many and said to be an ‘inexperienced community activist’ when his campaign kicked off against holier-and-more-Democrat-than-thou Clinton.
Nixon has a strong platform and the activist history necessary to correct Cuomo’s disastrous corrupt tenure. I hope she destroys him in the primary.
2
In this year of Trump and Kushner, it took a woman to get us to "degradation." I'm disappointed in you, Frank.
3
Wow. You learn something every day. I was already fairly certain that Ms. Nixon had no discernible qualifications to be governor, but I had no idea she was a “brilliant” actress.
Close call between the corrupt Cuomo and the novice Nixon. New York needs change. Who can be worse than Cuomo? Our taxes are through the roof.
1
Unfortunately, Mr. Bruni is likely sounding old fogeyish to the vast majority who probably won't hear him in any case. He's not transgressive enough by half. Ms. Nixon has more than the frustrated subway rider and mother cards to play. This is America and she can be whatever she wants. Campaign slogan possible, 'Life of the Party'.
2
Why should anyone be surprised by this? Trump won because people were sick and tired of the same old same old. The problem isn't that the reason for choosing inexperience has been addressed. The problem is the voters haven't been convinced yet that inexperienced people running for office is a mistake. Trump will certainly get us there much faster because of who he is and how he behaves rather than because of inexperience alone. All that being said, the reason Ms. Nixon will be a viable candidate is because Cuomo offers way too much of the same old same old. Many of his policies are reasonable ones, but people are tired of his talking out of both sides of his mouth, the clear corruption, and the fact that he is more like Trump than he is different. I'm not quite sure why Zephyr Teachout didn't make another run, but one thing is certain: the public longs for change in New York, too. Cuomo's hubris is not reading the tea leaves. And the New York Democratic party's failure is not finding a more experienced candidate. You don't have to have great name recognition to win, just the right platform. Just ask George Pataki.
I think Cuomo and New York State politics are irredeemably corrupt. But the point here is well made. There is something to be said for experience and expertise; a nod to elitism, perhaps.
How insulting that Cynthia Nixon thinks she can be Governor! And what a sad commentary that Mayor DeBlasio supports her! I am beyond disappointed with what was once liberalism. It lets not forget he’s a Mayor who brings his wife to interviews and wants to get her paid for her “work”. No one elected her and she is not an employee and has no creditable experience. What has NY come to?
I pray the voters wake up and realize that being a leader takes much more than platitudes. Experience running large organizations at least offers a track record we can readily judge. Being married to someone or being an actress does not demonstrate the ability to govern.
Her ignorance of state politics is already telling. Does she believe that all of the state outside of NYC are supporters of her far left progressive politics and solutions? That they are chomping at the bit to send all of their tax money to repair the broken city infrastructure when their own is just as bad? Does she even have a clue that there is no economic boom happening in many of these upstate communities and they really are not tremendously interested in her local concerns? Hillary Clinton knew she had to go upstate to win as Senator and woo them by promising economic revival. I'm not sure what Nixon is planning to tell the 58% of New Yorkers that don't live in NYC. She has zero chance of winning, maybe a better idea would be for her to run for her local school board or something commensurate with her complete lack of political experience or knowledge. She of course has no chance of winning as Governor, thank goodness for that.
1
I just thought the only qualification for holding ELECTED office was citizenship and being of the legal age, no?
The idea that "experience" negates intelligence, common sense, problem solving ability, people skills, integrity, etc., is why we can't get things that might make our democracy run better...like term limits. Nixon is ambitious, and good for her. Plenty of "experienced" men have been just as ambitious...and look where that's gotten us.
For God's sake, let the woman run without trying to tip your thumb on the scale before the campaign has really even begun. She wants to be governor...why is it so ridiculous to hear her out? It's almost like those, critical of her "ambition," are jealous that the don't have the guts to do the same. Instead, they chide her for not knowing her "place"...and for refusing to stay in it.
1
Yes, Frank. No more well-meaning earnest amateurs. We need jaded professionals responsive to billionaires and skilled at deceiving the public and fattening their bank accounts.
4
I'd taker the safer bet, too, if I were a New Yorker. But, I'm a Virginia resident, and, good news, we got the safer bet and a decent human being in Gov. Northam last year. Northam beat Ed Gillespie, who'd never been anything except for Cashier of the Republican Party and mouthpiece for execrable causes like guns-for-everybody and climate-change denial. Oh, and Ed had all the money it took 'cause the GOP really hates the way the Old Dominion doesn't go for their their dog whistles anymore. So, fret not, guys, New Yorkers have a street rep for being smart. Fame and (probably some) fortune may buy you the presidency of the United States, but the governorship of New York might be a tougher deal.
Are New Yorkers really that smart? They elected Hillary Clinton, after all, a carpetbagger whose primary experience when she was first elected was that she was married to a president--oh yeah, and did a helluva job on health care in Bill's administration.
1
"Anyone in this country can become President of the United States. That is the problem." - George Carlin
___________________
Guess the same can be said about Governor of NYS.
1
Forget the mayor job. I hope she runs for the white house.
We need a different Nixon in the office.
I am incredibly tired of celebrity politicians, especially Trump. That being said, I am even more tired of elected officials who cannot muster the ability to solve the problems for which they have been elected. Case in point- the subway system in this city is an utter catastrophe, it is unreliable in the extreme, outdated, and constantly breaking down. Yet, our elected officials endlessly squabble over who is "responsible" for fixing it, while most of the resources seem to go into digital clocks and station re-decoration.
I don't think that people dislike experience. I think that voters are tired of incompetence. We're tired of seeing our quality of life erode ever downward when it comes to jobs, the environment, wages, healthcare, educational opportunities, child welfare, and affordable housing only to see our elected officials trip over each other to steal $1.5 Trillion of our tax dollars for the wealthy, and pour endless billions into the most bloated military on the planet.
That's the real issue. I would much rather have experienced and competent public servants in office. But if those we elect are corrupt, contemptuous of the citizenry, or just indifferent, how can you not expect people to gravitate toward whatever solution feels workable?
1
But Frank- she went to Harvard law school and made partner at a competitive law firm all while juggling single motherhood.
Okay. And let's have Cuomo take over Nixon's role in a play on Broadway.
We had an experienced candidate in 2016. NYT, WaPo and every other "serious" news outlet hounded her to an Electoral College defeat. The breathless hysteria over "HER EMAILS" and covering her like a serious candidate and holding her to a serious-candidate standard (while letting Trump slide through with the ease of a sideshow barker) is what got us this administration. No, Trump didn't teach this country anything. Except maybe that serious candidates need not apply, because some buffoon will run against them and get treated like a frat boy hosting a kegger.
3
People are so disenchanted with experienced politicians that they are ready to try any alternative.
It doesn't occur to most people that inexperienced celebrities will make an even bigger mess of it.
As I life-long Democrat, I'd find it hard to pull the lever for anyone named "Nixon."
1
It seems true that the lack of experience is no guarantee of moral rectitude or keen outsider insight. However, we have so many people with ample experience, who still come up massively short. Henry Kissinger and John Bolton spring to mind. So what is your answer? How do we get qualified people to step up and challenge the corruption of our current crop of "leaders". Bernie Sanders was pilloried by the NYT for his lack of experience after 3 decades at different levels of government service. What's your answer, Frank?
I admire Ms. Nixon's willingness to jump into the race.
Albany is a deeply corrupt culture, rife with cronyism, influence peddling and fiefdoms aplenty. Even if she is unelectable she is making the point that Andrew Cuomo is a deeply flawed incumbent.
Cuomo's mismanagement of the MTA situation for which is partially to blame is a black eye on the state. His willingness to brandish his veto power on bills that have 99% legislative support but offend other rich white politicians like his crony Cyrus Vance, jr clearly demonstrate that he is not the man of the people he would like us to believe he is. I don't know if she can win, but Ms. Nixon can run and she can get people thinking.
1
Cynthia Nixon has a fine history of community activism. Who is columnist Bruni to determine that she is unqualified to run for office over the likes of play for payers such as Christine Quinn and Hillary Clinton. What actual experience did either of those two possess other than abilities to aggrandize themselves in the lifestyle of the one percent? I can't think of two public representatives who did so little for so many for so long. As with with Bernie Sanders and the progressive side of Bill deBlasio, your mission is to tear them down, and now you add Ms Nixon to your work list. from this point. We want a change, we don't want the same two parties that work for the same interests that you spin for. I am not inspired by political postering, why do you have a column?
1
Albany is so dysfunctional that pretty much anyone would be an improvement. Since we keep voting the same corrupt political party and there is no opposing party we deserve what we get ,
1
I appreciate Cynthia Nixon's progressive voice. However, what's really going on here is that Nixon is being used by Mayor de Blasio in his divisive, unproductive and ultimately destructive feud with Governor Cuomo. It's not good for the City and it's not good for the State. Shame on de Blasio!
Bravo for this! This idea should also extend to the NYTs quoting late show hosts on their opinions about government. Who cares about their opinion? As the author indicates this is just emotional buttress for our preconceived notions and prejudices. Ms. Nixon is a great actress, which, indeed qualifies her to be an actress. The American voter needs more knowledge and sophistication. Unfortunately, this article is of the type too seldom appearing in the NYTs.
Thanks for this article...I said the same thing back when Jesse Jackson ran for President in 1984.
Deeply embedded in the assumption that we need fresh rather than experienced leadership is the notion that our problems -- the subways, public housing, the schools, the economy, immigration, our foreign relations-- can be easily resolved by someone who is smart, dedicated, and innovative. We don't want to believe that if these problems were easily remedied, someone would have already solved them. They are, in my view, wicked problems that have to be attacked at the source, and they need the most experienced and persistent leadership, not the newbies and dilettantes, no matter how much we like their public personas.
1
This is about attention and stardom. Just like POTUS, just different politics. Start with something small, but meaningful. Those who serve on school boards or town and city councils do so with a great expense of time and labor, usually with good intentions on improving their communities, but no fanfare. Those are true public servants, not self-aggrandizing celebrities.
5
As in any profession they should start at a lower level and work into positions of increasing responsibility. I like Cynthia Nixon, Oprah, and Alec Baldwin but none of them are qualified to hold high political office at this time.
4
People with no experience or lack of interest in indirect /direct consequences have been charge in corporate America in high positions. Remember the recession of 2008. We have had politicians survive college yet were forced out of office with sexual scandals. When I was in the hospital I learned that we have nurses completing on line nursing courses, it fits into there life style . Slightly unfair to target Ms. Nixon when so many others hold political office remember Sam Brownback he destroyed the economy of Kansas and Betsy DeVous , Michelle Rhee who have destroyed public education? we have thousands of people who have used marketing /branding as if they care but in reality they care about there bank accounts. Ms. Nixon has been an involved New Yorker who didn't come from a
political dynasty family like Cuomo who has had so many doors open to them. I lost all respect for Ms. Quinn when she voted to give Mr. Bloomberg a third term, the mayor of the rich. Bloomberg didn't even respect her enough to endorse her. Ms. Quinn was far from being the smart City Council President she would have you believe.
So if experience counts Governor Cuomo has had a great deal of experience being a Republican not representing the needs of all the people in the state.
Lets move onto the numerous issues and stop with who should be allowed to run.
1
Actually, I do value "values" over experience. One can always surround oneself with people of experience but, if you subscribe to the idea that "the buck stops here" (as I do) then the "values" of the buck stopper becomes paramount.
3
Nixon is displaying a variation of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
4
.........in combination with a variation of the Peter Principle
1
No, Mike. The Peter Principle states that individuals rise to their level of incompetence. Nixon would be STARTING at the level of of incompetence. It is the basis of most complaints against her running, let alone serving, i.e., she has no experience whatsoever.
1
.........If you want to "split hairs". Either/or or a combination of the 2 the evidence points to the only logical conclusion, she's unqualified.....punkt.
We need many good candidates in the Democratic party. Why pick an office already held successfully by another qualified person? Let's not waste a good Democratic candidate when there are so manyu bad Republican office holders waiting to be defeated? Our country is facing serious problems with a Republican control that is inept.
Todays news of Jon Bolton's appointment is very scary! This appointment of the most radical of neocons could bring us to a needless war a second time.
It is important that the Dems take control of congress and retrieve it's war powers control.
Bolton is a danger to our country, but especially to our young who would have to fight another senseless war. We are still fighting the ones he started with Cheney 16years ago .
3
Completely agree. However, what voters are doing when they vote for celebrities is not voting for their inexperience. They are voting for the emotional connection they enjoy with the candidate. Politics is all about trust and people trust candidates who they have seen over and over again. It's not right but it makes sense.
2
While experience is definitely a plus, with an open mind, learning attitude, humility, and a good staff much of what would be needed could be picked up. Similarly, expertise is important, but what's overlooked in the given metaphors is that many of the lurking problems do not have expertise-ready solutions. Experts may have their own narrow, conventional approaches which may miss other perspectives, innovation, and changing times. Expertise needs to be supplemented too. Also, watch the downgrade of empathy. There are few things more important to real leadership than emotional intelligence. Finally, we see the continued false duality between feelings or emotion versus facts. They are not necessarily the opposites they are conventionally assumed to be. The brain doesn't work that way. The trick is to make the pieces work, both in one's team and in oneself, in order to best muddle through ambiguous, challenging, sometimes unprecedented problems. Make your mistakes, pick them up fast, reflect, adapt, and communicate. Humility, again, is awfully helpful, but doesn't seem to fit the conventional leadership model. Now if you can find someone with all these qualities, you have the near-perfect candidate. But until you show Nixon, or anyone else, has less of them than her opponents, an attack like this is inappropriate.
3
This issue of celebrities as experts started long before now. A number of years ago talk shows would routinely have an actor who had starred in a movie that highlighted an important issue and treated them as if they had studied the issue for years instead of memorizing a few lines. Tom Hanks has been in that position many times. Celebrities have a one up on people who have worked in government unnoticed as they did their jobs and gained the necessary experience because the celebrity has appeared before the public and the public has become unable to separate fact and fantasy. Celebrity may trump(eeeek. no pun intended) expertise more because of familiarity of the celebrity than distaining the expert. Celebrities have the experience of being practiced at being comfortable in front of a crowd, public speaking, of projecting themselves, and skills necessary in the acting and celebrity world that the expert lacks. That is some of what attracts people and that charisma is interpreted as appropriate for office rather than appropriate for the stage, screen and tv. I have heard people who have achieved success say that they voted for Trump because they saw him as a successful business person -a demonstration of expertise. Also, we can not ignore the need of the public for constant entertainment much like the Roman rabble needed more entertainment. Celebrities satisfy that need.
2
You're actually highlighting a fundamental problem with democracy in itself, and why authoritarianism is becoming so popular to so many. This is not to say the democracy is broken, but when millions of voters vote for familiarity of this or that celebrity, that certainly trumps any sense of reason. And when reason is no longer necessary for a typical voter, we are in trouble.
Any unqualified person can dream....not all of them can raise the kind of money needed to run for any kind of office. Expertise does not equal success, despite what your parents told you about education. In politics, it can be a downright handicap, with people who have well thought out solutions to policy problems being called "wonks". People with political instincts -- i.e., the ability to herd cats -- are often in charge of businesses or institutions which really should place a higher value on expertise, but that's life.
2
I agree that experience matters for executive political posts such as the President, a governorship or mayor of a city. These positions require detailed knowledge of how government works and how things get done. Less or no prior experience is required for purely legislative positions such as state or federal senators, House Representatives, or city council members. In this light, Cynthia Nixon like Donald Trump, lacks the basic experience to competently do the job.
3
Thank you for saying this! As someone who has dedicated my adult life to learning about government (ours, in particular) and the theories behind how our government is supposed to operate, I've been saying this ever since Arnold was elected in California. If only we could get more people to understand and agree.
6
I'm conflicted. I agree that experience is critical to success in all endeavors and that it is magical thinking to support a celebrity or someone attractive to you for whatever reason when they jump into the realm of marketing their uninformed opinions. On the other hand, I have found from experience that women cannot achieve true parity with men until we can be accepted and promoted for doing as mediocre a job as the men around us.
1
I see you want women and feminism to 'rise to the occasion,' but resentment and vindictive responses really don't do much for society or feminism.
1
We don't need to rise to the occasion. We have already risen.
Excellent article. Christine Quinn's point is on point. “...why can’t I [be an actor]? Because I can’t. The years I might have spent developing skills in that area, I spent developing other skills.”
Actors know very little about the ins and outs of how to make things happen on key political topics and issues. If an actor takes up politics, let it first be at the local level, then build up from there, as countless other, successful, effective political leaders have done.
9
To further prove the point, look at Mr. Bruni, who was once the chief restaurant critic, yet somehow managed to score an op-ed column writing about far more important and complicated matters. How was he ever deemed qualified?. So where are these experienced candidates bravely stepping up to challenge the governor? Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Incumbents are rarely opposed by people within the party that have some experience. When that has happened, the challenger certainly can expect to receive little to no support from the party, and plenty of anger and hostility. By running, Ms. Nixon can draw attention to important issues that aren't being addressed and highlight the governor's shortcomings. Good luck to her.
4
Good piece.
Virtually anyone can run for these positions, not just anyone can do them successfully. We'd be shocked if the actor Jim Carry was hired to replace Jamie Dimon as CEO of Chase Bank. The employees would be distressed, stock prices would plummet, and executive management would be flummoxed. Yet apparently just anyone can be Governor or President. Ms. Nixon should try her hand in more local political position or as the OP suggests, run for congress. As a congresswoman or senator you are running in a pack and are in-charge, more or less, of yourself and your staff and you get experiance in the actual operation of government.
13
The 'Good Old Days': First, local politics to learn the fundamentals of politics and jurisprudence, knowledge that's refined and expanded upon at the state level...then it's off to the big leagues, first in the House, then Senate, and then...if Peter's principle hasn't struck...the Big Kahuna.
Enter the age of instant gratification and impatience..."I want it all, I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now!" (Queen's "I Want It All")
Frank Bruni makes a strong point but would it have been stronger—or weaker—if he had made the point without calling on the views of others whose opinions have already been made?
Without answering the question of whether Trump is good for the presidency, the question ought to be is he better with one year of experience on his new job?
The disturbing and disrespectful changes in major cabinet positions are said to be his way of getting the people around him who are closer to his ideological disposition and whom he can trust. However, these changes are viewed by critics as leading us closer to the threat of war which may be at exactly the bargaining positioning where Trump wants to be.
Bargaining from a position of “threat” may be more comfortable for a real estate developer than an American president but Trump’s experience is as a real estate developer and not an international diplomat. Are those the skills that will make a good president; probably not for America but will do for Trump’s vision of American greatness.
Will Ms. Nixon make a good governor with only Hollywood experience? Maybe not for New York; but who knows what a year on the job may bring?
A risky proposition based more on hope than discrimination. It implies that anyone famous enough is worth the gamble.
I do not pretend to understand the lack of respect for experience in politics which brought us Trump as leader of the free world. Perhaps it is part of the American narrative in which we are told we can be anything we want to be. That is delusional thinking but yet we tell our children this all the time, as did I.
What is forgotten in the narrative of limitless possibilities is that it takes very hard work and experience absolutely matters. As a former teacher, I can assure you that it takes at least seven years to exhibit mastery in the field. How can someone who has no political experience expect to run for governor of New York? We have to stop believing all those saccharine bumper stickers and uplifting mantras that tell us anything is possible. You have to work your way up - knowledge and experience matter, no matter how much we try to delude ourselves that it doesn't. I wish Cynthia Nixon luck as I do any Democrat who challenges Cuomo, but I would prefer a challenger who has already exhibited some level of mastery in the field of governing.
18
The worst part of her running is that celebrity pushes out excellent, experienced candidates with the very same ideas that have names not widely recognized. Hopefully, liberals and progressives are smarter than their republican counterparts and will see through celebrity and make choices on merit rather than visibility.
16
Good column, Mr. Bruni. High political office really requires political or public service experience. There are entry-level political positions that should be open to any dedicated citizen and then afford the experience necessary to navigate high-level positions. The real dynamic here is that celebrity status is a huge asset in the electoral process from Ronald Reagan onward. The wealthy celebrity as ideal candidate is a dangerous trend.
16
This disdain for experience was a common theme when I used to interview prospective writing instructors for an urban university. One of my favorite responses came from an ABD student of English Literature who informed the committe that if a person could read, she could teach writing. We can imagine the ego behind these would-be teachers or politician, but while that student was surely working out of desperation, Ms. Nix does not have that excuse.
9
Al Franken walked into a Senatorship with no government experience. Kept his celebrity head down and his humor under wraps for four years while he covered the state and policy-wonked and if he’d had a chance to defend himself, we might still have him working for our state and our country, which we all know could use his brain and heart, quick wit and work ethic working against a largely uncaring Republican juggernaut. Celebrityhood and lack of experience are not necessarily the kiss of death.
26
Perhaps, but exactly what agency runs (ran) under Franken's leadership? None. What budget was he primarily responsible for building and passing through the Minnesota legislature? None. Who'd be by Nion's side as a co-partner, to show her the ropes like Klobuchar was to Franken? No one. Who's ever conflated being a senator from the state with the 17th largest GDP with being governor of New York, the state with the 3rd largest GDP and one that's about 5x the size of Minnesota's? No one, not really.
Franken's to be applauded for the seriousness with which he learned his job, on the job. Nonetheless, it was not the same as being governor, not by a long shot.
Yes. And then his Celebrityhood WAS the 'kiss of death' when the photos of him grabbing a woman's breast surfaced. Entertainers entertain. Elected officials do not "have" to be either politicians or entertainers... they can (and should) be scientists, professors, doctors etc. as well.
Really? And when other people stepped out of their chosen profession of actor, doctor, lawyer and choose to run for elected office to serve the public (because this is what our government is about-by the people, for the people), it’s ok because they were men? Did you have much to say about Schwarzenegger, Carson, Thompson, Reagan, Trump, Franken, and of course the illustrious Trump?
11
I think his point was that it's looking like this is becoming the norm, and also that trump (one trump, right? or was there another one?) is the wake-up call. There are women with public service and political experience doing a great job in office and their numbers are growing, thank goodness.
7
Yes, believe it or not people did disparage Reagan, Schwarzenager, Ventura, et al as degrading public service.
Every criticism of a woman is not sexism.
1
Sue, please read before you type. Bruni called out both Carson and Trump, the latter being the example par excellence of why we shouldn't elect celebrities who are political novices. Reagan, whatever you thought of his politics, put his time in prior to running for governor prepping for the run working in Hollywood politics. Give the female outrage a rest and focus.
1
I don’t get it either why anyone with zero experience in government would want to be elected to public office.
Every job I have ever heard of has a job description with a minimum of experience and qualifications required.
What is the job description, experience and qualifications required to become president of the USA?
5
Apparently wealth--or access to it--a public that sympathizes with your platform, and fame. That's just about it.
And would have an inexperienced surgeon who absolutely denies any help from more experienced surgeons to operate on you?
4
I am reminded of the many people who think that can own and operate a restaurant because they have eaten in restaurants. It is common knowledge that restaurants have the highest mortality rate of all retail businesses, and perhaps that is the reason. It is dismaying to contemplate having a rank amateur in the highest office in the state. Just look at what a mess we have in the White House.
It is the height of arrogance, narcissism, and irresponsibility that this actress thinks it appropriate to even consider filling the position.
8
As a counterpoint to this piece, everyone should read https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/03/22/cynthia...
3
Bill Gates turned to philanthropy after making his fortune. What are his credentials? Success. Same as Trump's. Nixon's credentials are simply being famous, regionally. This column doesn't even grasp basic concepts.
1
Get your point but Bill Gates, Trump are a "little" different. Gates is an actual success story, Trump is more of a travelling salesman who just so happened to come upon millions from his dad.
1
Trump was successful? At what?
1
On the presidential level, at least, managing a campaign over the nearly 2-year period necessary does provide a revealing look at what kind of an executive a candidate will be, to say nothing of providing valuable experience for the candidate. I remember a 2008 NYT analysis that said Obama managed his campaign organization far better than Hillary did hers. Then we got to observe 18 months of the Trump campaign, with little resembling organization, constantly revolving personnel, and an easily distracted candidate whose chief skills were performing at rallies and manipulating the media, which is also a good description of his administration!
4
Why the romance with a political rookie? There is a very long held and deeply felt collective belief, born chiefly of protestant moralism, that politics inhabits the realm of humankind´s fall from grace. The rookie is unsullied and our fantasy has it that he, Frank Capra´s Mr. Smith, will go to Washington and clean things up. Plainly, Trump is much too dirty to be that guy, but the go-for-the-rookie fantasy, combined with an opponent with a tin ear and a party that had turned its back on the working class, held long enough to get him elected.
4
You have raised an important issue, the role of experience, for any policy maker, but in a misleading manner.What types of experiences? Your writing style creates a constraining either/or, experience/inexperienced reality."Experience,"whatever types, levels, and qualities is multidimensional; not just a mantra!What are the minimal skills, abilities, knowledge, understanding, judgmental and decision-making experiences, etc., necessary for an effective, local to national, policy maker? Separating a person's Identity-self created and attributed by others- from their range of overt and not covert behaviors.Who are some appropriate guide-line- examples whom you chose not to note, as you were critical of other named people?Perhaps you would consider writing another column fleshing-out "experience" when explored in a culture which enables both elected and selected policymakers, of whatever ideological beliefs and practices, to harm by words, and deeds, without being personally accountable.As well as not saying, and doing, what is necessary for achieving, and sustaining, equitable sharing of limited human and nonhuman resources- a constant reality- which underpin individual and systemic well being. Experienced policymakers have fostered and implemented discrimination.Daily violating of selected, dehumanized, "the other." Experienced "certitudiners" spout walling THEM out, getting a THEM out. From a divided country. Of diverse peoples. Traditions.Ideas.Values. Norms.Dreams.Experience?
It is so American to assume there are real, discernible answers to all our problems if only we get the right person with “fresh ideas.” Good lord...there aren’t any fresh ideas. Maybe our situations are simply as good as it gets.
5
New York politics has brought us Tammany Hall, smoke-filled rooms of men, imprisonment of some of the highest representatives in Albany and the regular and recurring taint of corruption. A fresh face like Ms. Nixon's compels us to examine our assumptions from the ground up. This is not a bad thing. If elected, her governance might be difficult but as a candidate it shakes a tree in need of pruning.
6
I wish that this opinion piece would have come out when 45 was running (again and again and again) but alas I don't recall reading anything quite like this then. While I would be the last person to ever invite inexperienced pilots, doctors etc. to serve me, I would never equate a sane, educated, articulate, empathetic person with that whom we have seated at the WH., just because they have celebrity in common. Certainly a Franken, Reagan, Bono, Ventura, even Schwarzenegger were given the opportunity without kicking them down before they even had a chance to speak in public.. why not Ms. Nixon?
6
The complaint here about ignoring expertise is wide of the mark. The real malaise is corruption- the domination of government by big money interests. At the expense of other voters and the country’s big problems. No amount of expertise will improve matters while the me-me-only-me mantra of of the “less regulation, lower taxes, fewer benefits” faction controls all branches of the Federal government and the majority of State governments.
2
Anyone else remember the ad with Alec Baldwin stepping into an accident scene with "It's okay; I'm a celebrity." That.
Speaking of which, anyone else remember the awful grilling Betsy DeVos got from Al Franken about the basics of the department she now heads? When will Nixon get that grilling, before or after the primary?
2
I worry about the state of political leadership in this country, and indeed around the world. Mainly because public service seems to attract some of the most incompetent, uncharismatic and rudderless amongst us. The premise that experience in the political sphere is a good thing is massively flawed, they are far from our best.
What the world needs now, and more than ever, is people with good human values. Real human empathy. Perhaps even raw and preferably untarnished views of the ways of the world. Nixon so far seems to have all of those. Let's see.
3
I don't like the idea of this third rate actress running for such an important job just because she thinks it's a good gig. Her lack of experience and more importantly, her lack of connections in Albany and lack of politically experienced connections to help her are a recipe for disaster.
Ms. Nixon needs to start with something smaller before just running for Governor because she feels like it, or can't find another forgettable role to play. How about City Council? Congress? Even Mayor. . .we couldn't do any worse.
2
I only argue with one line in this essay: Baldwin, Nixon, Reagan are or were not geniuses in acting, either.
Dunno, Alec is pretty good.
"Degradation of Experience"? Hmm. Why is this issue getting so much attention now? And, mind you, there hasn't been only a degradation of experience, but also a degradation of intelligence. Prior to Trump, there were Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, neither of whom was particularly knowledgeable about U.S. history, foreign policy, or other general matters you should want a president to be familiar with, despite their tenures as governors. This question of experience/intelligence only seems to be raised when a minority or woman dares to seek high office. Barack Obama was "just a community organizer". Hillary Clinton, despite her many accomplishments and extensive education, still somehow lacked that certain something necessary to become president. Now I don't know whether or not Ms. Nixon would make a good governor. But I do know that counting her out merely because she lacks specific experience seems like a cheap shot. If the voters don't think she should govern them, they simply won't vote for her, even though their judgment was severely called into question last November.
5
Patients always remember the name of their surgeon, never that of their anaesthetist. Sorry for the nitpicking, Mr. Bruni, but while a surgeon may bring "fresh perspective to incisions," your life is in the hands of ANOTHER person - your anesthesiologist. They are two different people who've had equal years of medical training, though a large percentage of the population have no idea who the anaesthetists are and what they do. It's been said, if surgeons are the blood, anaesthetists are the brain. :-))
1
I'd rather a novice surgeon than one with 4 malpractice cases for every 5 patients. Trump and Nixon both run against years of corruption in one form or another.
1
I found her ad bizarre. I don't know this woman. This is not the person I've seen on TV--whether films, scripted series, or news clips where she's speaking in public, as any citizen has a right to do.
She's being presented as some kind of American Icon.
Honestly, she's being presented like she's been cast in a movie where Hillary Clinton won the election, and she's Hillary.
We're supposed to look at this character she's playing and think "She knows everything, she dresses nicely, she's so loving, serene, and confident--she'll fix this country."
It's not real. It's also something that would never play outside of Hillary country.
It's also almost bereft of any serious positions on issues. It looks like it was written and produced by poltiical consultants.
The one thing a poltical newb has to contribute is lack of polish. A new perspective, a new approach.
She's already thrown that in the trash. She's running as if she's Hillary. I'm sure, with her training, she's convinced herself she is.
1
I don't care one iota what Cynthia Nixon's ideology is or what she plans to do if elected - I just hope she never gets elected, period.
I cannot name one person elected to national office in the past half century (Congress, White House, major state governor, etc.) solely on name recognition and fame (and lacking any relevant experience), that person has been mediocre at best and an abject failure at worst. Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, Fred Grandy, Sonny Bono, etc. I can't name a single one that was actually a successful elected official.
If Cynthia Nixon wants to run for elected office, let her run for her local PTA or city council and get some public service experience before aiming for higher office.
3
The most obvious illustraion of her neophyte political instincts is this very campaign. Anyone with any sense would have picked up on the fact that the country, and indeed this state, has taken a hard turn away from electing inexperienced celebrities. It doesn't bode well for her campaign that she's so clueless as not to have noticed this shift in the public appetite.
Just read the comments....
1
Every day I read articles like this I thank the maker I don't live in the US. Its a wonderful place, but so filled with egotistical people who have so much wealth but so little care for those in need.
1
Canada's current Prime Minister was a school teacher before running for elected office as an MP. His short tenure as an MP would have disqualifief others for running for leadership of the Liberal Party. Name recognition not experience got him his current position. Is he doing a good job? That is for others to debate.
Currently we have Rob Ford's brother Doug Ford heralded as the new leader of the Ontario Conservative party. His experience as a politician is minimal and equates to the same bluster and populist rhetoric espoused by Donald Trump. He touts his background as a businessman but the reality is he is running on the name recognition of his brother Rob Ford the erstwhile mayor of Toronto.
As the article clearly states there are many opportunities to gain political expertise before running for governor, president or president. Starting at the top takes a particular type of hubris despite what may be well intentioned motives. Canada is not immune.
The president may disdain experts in various fields such as diplomacy. He seems to respect his generals and their experience in war-fighting. And he continues to look for the best, most experienced lawyers to help him with a host of legal problems. Would he hire someone just out of law school? Hardly. Yet, he entrusts so many responsibilities to his son-in-law Kushner even though the man has very little experience and is up to his eyeballs in debt.
The president prefers to convince Americans that he can build better Potemkin villages for them to admire. And since millions of us have difficulty distinguishing between objective facts and invented reality, he profits from our ignorance and credulity. After all, when Disney World is a symbol of American culture and people enjoy having their photos taken with "Mickey" and "Minnie" who are human beings wearing Walt Disney costumes, why wouldn't people choose to vote for the biggest clown master to tell them he alone can "make America great again"?
This trend is a dangerous combination of the ego of celebrities and the ignorance of voters. Republicans have long messaged how unimportant the government is, and it is sad to see it work among some democrats who believe that government is so simple that anyone who can deliver a moving speech and shows a hint of humanitarianism is immediately qualified.
It went from President Hillary Clinton to President Oprah Winfrey. Democracy is failing.
Thank yo thanks you for the clarity of this column.
Although not a celebrity, I always thought similarly of Jill Stein, who has been running for governor of MA for about 15 years before running for president more recently. What's wrong with trying to become a state legislator before moving to the White House? Or any place where people can make a difference instead of the limelight of the campaign every 4 years, and then disappear until the next run?
Genius in one area does not assure competence in another, except that voters conflate notoriety and wealth with competence, and it seems many believe that a merely competent actor is all that’s needed for a politician. Many assume that the folks they see on tv are just the face for a large group of truly competent people who are doing all the heavy lifting in the background - we know Cynthia did not write the script, or design the costumes, or set up the scenes and camera angles or hire the people who do those things. If you have ever worked for a large well organized company, you know things can function just fine when the boss takes two weeks in Waikiki, everybody continues doing their job and important things still get done. It’s easy to assume the boss is just there to write checks and talk to lawyers and accountants about how best to use the wealth the workers generate. If the lead actor has falling out with the producer, well, another actor can be found to speak the lines, you don’t have to replace the entire company roster. Voters make this assumption about politicians and especially the President - what she knows is irrelevant compared to how she looks and makes you feel.
1
When I lived in California and Schwarzenegger was running for Governor of CA, I implored whomever would listen that he wasn't experienced to run the state. That didn't seem to bother many. People thought because he had some big ideas and had some success in business he was a good alternative to the status quo. Pointing out that when you earn twenty mil per movie, you can buy real estate, restaurants and hire people to manage them doesn't suddenly make you a good business man didn't matter. It explains why so many fell under Trumps spell of putting in a someone that wasn't a career politician. Her early supporters erroneously believe Nixon will offer an alternative to Cuomo. She certainly will, INEXPERIENCE. Every politician wants better schools, transit, better services, less homelessness, more jobs, less taxes. There's no easy solution and Nixon has zero experience working with incumbents, entrenched politicians in Albany, unions overtaxed New Yorkers will have virtually no success in making changes with better outcomes. Schwarzenegger was a fraud and never fixed anything or improved anything while in office. It took former governor Jerry Brown with experience as a former two term governor and Mayor of Oakland to come in and balance the budget and move CA forward.
3
There is only one truly political skill: communication. There is enough expertise in any administration on any level. The trouble with Trump is not, that he is not an expert, but that he refuses to listen to experts. Politicians have to bring to the table what civil servants can't, because they have to be loyal: thinking outside the box and giving direction, based on values. As a politician, you can tell all your experts: this is what I want to change, and I await your propositions of policy to implement that. Then you pick a policy and sell it to the voters. And that is where the expertise of a politician comes in.
4
Enough already with celebrity apprentices learning on the job@ the highest level. Though Ms Nixon’s intentions may be straight up, NY State , especially in the Trump era, cannot afford an amateur fame seeker at the top. No they cannot break the log jam - they will only make it worse as we have already seen.
7
Governments at all levels are supposed to be staffed with citizens that step away from their real day jobs to serve their country then return to their day job and neighbors then will do the same. The US was never supposed to have a ruling class.
Being in government is not that difficult. There is only two requirements: 1. Listen to the people you represent, 2. Treat everyone as a human being and one rule not to take bribes. The US is a hot mess because we do not have new ideas coming into government and we sure as he'll do not have representation that listens to what We the People want.
To get the best possible government, we must have strict term limits at all levels. We also must see candidates as human beings instead of focusing on their warts and or party affiliation. Lastly, we must quit the "2 party" system and replace it with multiple parties or no parties and mandate that the parties cannot create election rules. Election rules should only be approved by a majority vote of citizens. Lastly, and least likely to happen, all people legally residing in the US must be able to vote.
Bruni wants a government populated by the same old people who fail and/or refuse to govern so the whole country can become a More Perfect Union. I prefer people with no experience but a strong desire to create a better country for all. I prefer one made up of my neighbors and other human beings who will return to their day job at the end of their 1st term.
5
Our politics have utterly failed us, and part of that failure has been how vulnerable our politics are to fact-free, ideological, tribal-based, appeal.
All of this can be traced to the country's collective failure, beginning in Reconstruction, to integrate every citizen and ensure that all citizens are treated equally by the law and under the law. That failure sealed the deal, making it possible to have second class citizens, changing the promise of the country from its gorgeous rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution into Blood & Soil populism.
After all, Nixon's Southern Strategy was precisely that, an appeal to racism as a lever to pry every Southern State from the Democratic ledger. It worked, and were reaping the whirlwind now.
5
The notion that there is a set of events and actions that qualifies someone to be a leader (which all successful executives are) simply perpetuates the hegemony of those currently in the professional political class who “have experience” and “lead” by responding to the demands of the currently powerful.
And I’m sorry, what’s the “experience” that gives someone the character, judgment and clarity of vision to be an effective leader? Would polling incumbents reveal that answer?
4
If Ms. Nixon started by running for a less glamorous position like councilwoman, State Assembly, or school board, I'd have more confidence in her commitment to a career in government. I appreciate her activism, but entering government in the top job makes about as much sense as hiring Paul Ryan to direct Al Pacinos next film. Who hasn't had the experience, after years or decades of work in your profession, of meeting a new hire with no experience in the field but lots of ideas on how you've been doing it all wrong, and how did that work out?
19
"...Cuomo deserves fierce opposition," Mr. Bruni writes. So what's stopping "experienced" politicians from opposing him? Perhaps its a lack of courage. Ms. Nixon deserves credit for having that courage. She doesn't deserve to be Exhibit A in a piece about the denigration of experience, when there are so many better examples (most of them men, by the way.)
17
Bruni was nothing but respectful and tactful in his references to Nixon. It should be noted he did, in fact, speak out about Baldwin. Avoiding the opportunity to frame this as an experience (or lack thereof) issue would be the height of political correctness. I see no evidence of sexism.
1
Unfortunately Mr. Bruni, your vision leaves the traditionally unrepresented in politics to continue to be marginalized for generations until they gain the experience you want them to get. In Virginia’s 2017 elections, A trans woman got upset when she heard a legislator bragging about being the top homophobe in the state. She decided to run against him and won. Another state legislator marked the women at the women’s march, commenting that they better be home in time to make dinner. One of his constituents was offended. She ran against him and won too. I have plenty of experience on campaigns and in government and I don’t know if I’ve learned anything that would make me better prepared than Cynthia Nixon, who was at DiBlasio’s side for his unexpected initial victory and has been a committed activist for years.
No state, particularly one as large as New York, is run by an individual alone. Were Cynthia Nixon to pull off a victory, I trust that she would surround herself with competent and experienced advisers.
And I think James Gandolfini did pretty much just learn to act. I am not deriding experience. But I have watched men own politics since I was a little girl and I’ve had enough.
41
This is NOT about gender or underrepresentation, and it is irresponsible to pretend that it is.
Nationally there are thousands of female mayors, town council members, state senators and representatives. Add to that the tens of thousands of unelected managers and directors in public service, military officers and NCOs, and so forth.
Therefore, in any state, there are thousands of women more likely than an actor to have some understanding of management, leadership, budgets, policy and politics.
8
but she ran for as a local rep in a state wide office. She also ran on traffic issues, a local issue. Though his comment upset her, she did not run on sexual orientation issues but as I said, traffic, a big everyday local problem
1
Unfortunately, MS Leon, you're introducing irrelevancies into the discussion. Women (eg, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann) have shown they can be just as incompetent and venal as men in politics, so bringing gender into the discussion is the first irrelevancy.
Second, Mr Bruni specifically mentioned a legislature as a good place to learn the ropes, so your example of the trans guy in VA is irrelevant. The rest of your comment is more of the same, so there's no need to belabour the point.
Mr Bruni put it best when he wrote "Genius in one area doesn't guarantee genius in another." The skills required to be a good actor/actress are not the same as those required to be a successful and good politician.
This could be the defining divide of our time. The growing contempt for education, experience and expertise, could lead to a fundamental unraveling of our society. In the discussion of potential candidates, it would be helpful to focus on the actual requirements of the job sought and the demonstrated capacity of the candidate to fulfill those requirements. Unless perhaps the private sector is wrong in thinking qualifications matter. Expertise is built from years of difficult and often tedious work accompanied by deep thought. In the age of the internet we are collectively losing patience and capacity to consider complex issues. This is pretty scary given the magnitude and complexity of the issues we face in an increasingly interrelated world which needs to conquer global warming, economic disparity and resource scarcity if it is to survive.
14
Generally, I agree. Experience is to certainly to be venerated; however, I believe a successful politician balances experience and character. Are you terribly concerned that your doctor, or your child's teacher, is confronted as frequently as a politician may be by dubious influential forces? Those with celebrity have a unique advantage in this arena. Love them or hate them, we have a level of access to them that allows us to "know" them more fully than we may know those who legislate on our behalf. Further, I have made career path changes, and watched as others have done the same. Experience is not always the most critical determinant of success. It may be passion, leadership, diligence, or fresh perspective. Perhaps Ms. Nixon offers some or all of these.
10
It might prove instructive to look at the Platonic dialogue "Ion" where Socrates discuses with Ion, a poet, what skill or expertise poets have.
During the dialogue Ion maintains that his knowledge makes him a capable military general but states that when he recites passages concerning military matters, he cannot tell whether he does it with a general's skill, or with a rhapsode's
Ion's claim that his knowledge makes him a capable military general is a credible claim, and if we change "military general" "politician" it would make stronger claim if he said his knowledge makes him a capable politician.
In short Ion clams he would be a great communicator.
The same ability extolled as Ronald Reagan's principal virtue.
The current decline in respect for political experience and expertise in US politics began with Ronald Reagan.
It is worth noting that people in the United States have long been ant-intellectual because they have long held a disdain for book-learning, one of the hallmarks of an expert, in favor of practical experience.
One might consider that an actor learns by reading and acting characters and therefore acquires their knowledge both from book-learning as well as action.
Ronald Reagan held such a position hallowed by many in the Republican Party. Donald Trump is merely the apotheosis of that belief.
9
A great summation of the rise of Trump and the eventual fall of the republican party.
4
I'm a manager that hires people into not exactly entry level positions and I would rather leave a position open and take on additional work or spread it around rather than hire the wrong person, or someone at the limits of their ability. The person with no track record but seemingly smart can sometimes work out but it is a big risk most often not worth taking.
11
As a owner/manager I have a very worrisome view of what might happen when I take on a person who has good credentials but zero experience in the nitty gritty daily problems that are likely to occur.
After we have gone through various crashes and somehow survived them the person in question has become an asset. But if he now seeks a job that needs the experience he has gained he finds himself
regarded unfairly as part of a bureaucracy and so he is not a winner instead is a has been. I do take the view that hiring inexperienced people without some track for a job is very risky. Fortunately in my job I am there to gauge the likelyhood of a decision being right and in the event we are both wrong we have plan B. In politics a mal decision has too many let downs that leads to disasters rather than a workable alternate. To me politics seems loaded with the attractions of the right or the left whereas I am attracted by the middle which in time will lead to either the left or right.
1
Any recovery from the disaster we are living through must include a commitment to get back to basics. Find experienced and educated individuals with a track record of public service.
11
I was concerned when Reagen ran for president. I was equaly concerned for Minnesota when Jesse Ventura ran, and Al Franken ran for Senate. All of them rose to the occasion and did a fairly decent job. Fame does not mean they will do a lousy job. I am concerned for New York because Ms Nixon is running for a job for which she is unqualified. I can think of no direct reason that she wouldn't excel in the position but no evidence to prove she would excel. It's a gamble.
8
A fairly decent job? Did you ever get your share of Reagan's trickle down economics?
The Moreland Commission debacle alone makes Cynthia Nixon a much more qualified candidate than Cuomo. End of story.
Experience is a negative attribute when mixed with corruption.
12
I said it when Trump ran and it still applies -- the number one criteria for someone entering public service is an unshakable moral compass, and a character shaped by fundamental honesty and decency. Obviously the desire to make a difference and improve people's lives is critical too. Finally, relentless optimism and a thick skin is also pretty essential. I would far rather see people running for office who meet the above criteria than so-called 'experts' with experience in politics.
23
Nixon simply needs to make her case now, which will include demonstrating she can effectively manage a campaign. I trust that she’s quite smart, thoughtful, and has a serious committment to important issues, all factors that matter to me, and ones I’m not sure Cuomo has in abundance. Many experienced politicians such as Cuomo suffer from appearing as hacks: loving having their hands on the levers a little more than they love their principles. I just might prefer a relative political novice having Nixon’s qualities to an experienced hack.
9