On Wednesday, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum dropped out of the Republican race and endorsed Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) for the presidency. He then appeared on Morning Joe on MSNBC, where Joe Scarborough asked him why he had endorsed Rubio this way: “What do you list as Marco Rubio’s top accomplishment?”
Santorum had no answer. He sputtered that Rubio had brought people together. Scarborough asked again: “He’s been in the Senate four years. Can you name his top accomplishment?” Again, Scarborough had no answer. That’s when Mika Brzezinski stepped in: “Jeb Bush ran Florida. Donald Trump built a company. Marco Rubio…finish the sentence.”
This, naturally, made Rubio look quite bad. The truth is that Rubio’s signal accomplishment in the Senate was pushing the so-called Gang of Eight amnesty bill, which Rubio later abandoned.
But before we conclude that Rubio is unaccomplished and therefore unqualified for the presidency, let’s think about the nature of the question. Is it important for our political candidates to have a “top accomplishment” in order for us to elect them?
Obviously not. Go ahead – name Abraham Lincoln’s top accomplishment before becoming president. Or FDR’s. Or JFK’s. Or Barack Obama’s.
They don’t exist. That’s because the only politicians who “accomplish” things are in positions of executive power: governors, businessmen. In Congress, political “accomplishments” typically fall into the government activism category: John McCain’s biggest accomplishment was the execrable campaign finance reform, Ted Kennedy’s was his immigration boondoggle. And why should the fact that Donald Trump has built an enormous business make him a better president? Would Bill Gates be a great president because his business is many times the size of Trump’s? How about Mark Zuckerberg?
What’s more, we were better off when FDR and JFK and Obama had accomplished nothing, weren’t we?
When it comes to our political candidates, accomplishments matter far less than consistent ideology. Our politicians should not be in the business of “accomplishing” things, unless those things limit government and roll back tyranny. I’d rather vote for a consistently conservative homeless man than Bill Gates. Success in one endeavor does not translate to success in the world of politics, where our politicians are specifically supposed to do nothing most of the time. The Constitution is a system of checks and balances in order to stop people from “accomplishing” things. Limited government cannot exist in tandem with politicians who “accomplish” things.
So, here’s to lack of accomplishment. Give me the politician who leaves me the hell alone, and uses whatever power he has to stop others from bothering me. That’s the only kind of accomplishment I care about.