With the US presidential election a year away, I am trying to be a more informed citizen by keeping up with the news and watching debates, such as last night’s fourth Republican presidential candidate debate. I have never taken a political science class, but I have watched a lot of Parks and Recreation, which centers on local government officials and how they interact with the town they serve. No, this does not help me understand the merits of a candidate’s tax policy, but it provides a useful guide for qualities to look for in government leaders. Let’s trace the career of the main character, Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler), who would have my vote for president.
The show starts out with Leslie as deputy director of the Parks Department of Pawnee, Indiana. Leslie is hard working, innovative, and always trying to do what’s best for the town. This is not to say she is perfect. For example, she is involved with a minor “scandal” in Season 2 and actually requests an investigation into her own actions (she’s cleared of the charges). That level of honesty is rare in a politician. Later, she fights for a bill that leads to a recall of her position on the city council because that is what is best for the people in her town. She shows dedication to constituents over self-serving policies. Knope is honest and committed to advancing the welfare of the people she serves.
In Season 4, Leslie runs for the city council. There are two takeaways from this process. First comes from her participation in a debate. It is, of course, a caricature of current debates, but it highlights problems with the system. Leslie’s main rival is Bobby Newport (Paul Rudd), an absurdly rich and empty-headed scion of a powerful local family. His stance on crime garners thunderous applause—“I’m against crime, and I’m not ashamed to admit it”—just the sort of vague, easily agreeable claim that gets applause in real debates, too.
Consider the most favorable line ever recorded in a recent debate, which came from Ted Cruz during the last Republican debate. Cruz attacked the moderators for not asking substantive questions. While there are reasons to criticize the moderators, his examples included their questioning of Trump’s ridiculous immigration plan and the math behind Carson’s tax plan—in short, substantive issues. It’s hard to argue with the fact that moderators should be asking good questions so attacking them sounded great—how true it is, doesn’t really matter. This was also present in the Democratic debate. I would also love free public college, as Clinton and Sanders both endorsed, but achieving that is much more complicated (and expensive) than they suggested. The debate format makes room for liberal (no pun intended) uses of truisms and wild promises without a need to support these claims with evidence.
The second Parks and Recreation takeaway comes from Leslie Knope’s campaign ads. Instead of the traditional attack ads, complete with scary voice-overs, which her advisors put in front of her, she airs one that highlights the differences between her qualifications and Newport’s lack of them; she keeps the focus on important issues.
Unsurprisingly, she wins the election for city council. It is here that her respect for opponents is challenged through her dealings with an obnoxious counselor, Jeremy Jamm (Jon Glaser). When she tries to negotiate, he stonewalls her, even with simple things such as extending pool hours for a local swim club. Although she disagrees with Jamm about pretty much everything, she works with him and compromises so that laws can be passed that will benefit her constituents. She does not serve a political party; she serves the people.
Parks and Rec has taught me a lot. First, there is a need to look at a candidate’s track record—have they delivered on their promises and have they behaved ethically and honestly? Second, be more critical of what candidates promise, especially when it sounds like something I want to hear. This requires fact checking claims and plausibility of promises with independent sources before reaching a conclusion. And third, try to get a sense of whether or not candidates work with their political opponents. The refusal of the parties to work together in Washington is a monumental barrier to overcome. While the particular issue is obviously important, I’d like to see a president who has voted across party lines. This would demonstrate that the candidate will put his/her determination of what is best for the American people above the interests of their party.
I’m left with a quote from Leslie that demonstrates the true function of government: “We are a reflection of the community. And we believe that we can strengthen that community. Because in the end, the reason why we’re all here is to bring people together.” I hope that the politicians vying for the presidency understand this.
The post Why I Wish Leslie Knope was Running for President appeared first on Acculturated.