The Unsurprising Surprise of the Outsider Executive

The presidential race, embroiled in controversy as it is, gives us an interesting window into the fundamental power structures of our American society. Beneath the headlines, polling, and controversy, this race is exceptional in that a major party nominee has been put up in the election who has never held any elected office in any capacity ever before. This has happened before with Zachary Taylor, Herbert Hoover, Ulysses Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower; so it's not surprising that we have one without electoral political experience. What is an oddity worth examining is that those predecessors had some high level governmental experience before (in the case of Hoover) but more commonly, they had high level military charges as generals and commanders etc. In the context of America's history, these military leaders made sense for the times. We had culturally weighted military expertise as our most relevant form of power during their eras, the era's of America's great wars. They had cultural currency after the Mexican American War, the Civil War, and World War II. It says a lot about our society and what we valued at the time when these men, not traditionally public servants, were elevated to power.

The analogy that comes to mind talking about these atypical executives, is that of Papal power in 12th and 13th century Europe. The most powerful Popes and Kings took turns demanding and controlling one another's societies based on who had the most cultural relevance at the time. Take for example the papacy of Innocent III, who reigned during the time of the Muslim capture of Jerusalem. At the time, this held such cultural significance that the religious sphere of western civilization held far more sway in the collective cultural consciousness than other issues of trade, economy, and sovereignty. As such, Innocence III was able to assert his power as above kings and regional leaders with the backing of the cultural trends at that historical moment. Like popes of this era, American military men were able to capture public imagination and channel their historical moment to elevate the military focus at the time to the level of the executive. 

What this line of thinking means for our modern moment is interesting. It is a moment without precedent in American politics, but not without warning signs. Since Reagan and neoliberal economics swept through the country, government has become the enemy and business the paragon. In America though it is not just business but business outsiderness, that has especially taken the popular mind. The establishment government has been effectively maligned as slothful and ineffective. Business was presented as the cure for that in the 80's but the political baggage of Wall Street and a generation of failures by big business has made entrepreneurship the real darling of our cultural consciousness. It lines up with our foundational identity, a country of scrappy rebels forging our way against a frontier and a history that says we can't do something that we do anyways. The outsider entrepreneur, is our business-generation's American spirit animal. So it only makes sense to see that figure attempt to assert itself in the executive. Ross Perot was an early iteration of exactly this current. The self made millionaire outsider, Perot was exactly what the electorate had subconsciously incarnated with their cultural infatuation for the entrepreneur. Michael Bloomberg has tried his hand at executive government; with business experience as his claim to fame he has succeeded in wresting power locally and suggested doing so nationally. Donald Trump too has been testing these waters for decades now, launching exploratory bids on Perot's coattails in the Reform Party, teasing it in soundbites, finding the best way to fashion himself as the patron saint of this ideal. In some ways it is remarkable to see how his rise has taken over a major political party, and it is certainly unique in our history to find business as the only qualification for executive government but looking back at a history of non-government insurgents for power, the Trump phenomenon follows a very common pattern. People want to be governed by their ideal govern-er and when a society's mind is fixated on a non-governmental concept, it is only natural for that concept to infiltrate their ideal for government. This is why Trump is not the only nor the last businessman who will blindside the political establishment with an outsider bid that gains traction with the public. Mark Cuban, Mark Zuckerberg, and Kanye West have made obvious overtures to a future presidential run themselves, hoping to piggy-back on the same cultural trend while it lasts. The trend will end, likely soon, as nothing can sustain pretending to be not-itself for long. Governance too will soon revert back to the govern-ers, but in the meantime, political junkies, pollsters and establishments would do well to pay attention to non-political cultural idealism to avoid being caught off guard by a wholly predictable surprise-outsider.